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

[Osipi]

I can't say who is totally responsible for the "fairy tale princess" image but one thing I do know is that Diana, Princess of Wales was no fairy tale princess.

She may appear to be to some but the reality of the living, flesh and blood person that was Diana, there was nothing fairy tale about her at all. In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard her called that. The only reference to anything "fairy tale" was the wedding itself between Charles and Diana and perhaps her cupcake dress.

 

[Leopoldine]

So Diana did craft the picture perfect princess image that can not be emulated today?

She died before technology made that way more difficult.

Her "crafting" was easier then, esp. with Andrew Morton and Richard Kay and a few others in her pocket. She traded info on other Royals to escape bad press. She beguiled certain reporters.

Any attempts at "crafting" she did are well-known nowadays and perhaps we all know better now. I don't think a new princess or duchess can emulate her methods, basically because I think a new princess or duchess will be way closer to her husband than Diana was to PC.

 

[Kitty1224]

She died before technology made that way more difficult.

Her "crafting" was easier then, esp. with Andrew Morton and Richard Kay and a few others in her pocket. She traded info on other Royals to escape bad press. She beguiled certain reporters.

Any attempts at "crafting" she did are well-known nowadays and perhaps we all know better now. I don't think a new princess or duchess can emulate her methods, basically because I think a new princess or duchess will be way closer to her husband than Diana was to PC.

But yet no one can ever be as popular as Diana was when she was Princess of Wales and after her divorce. So she was very special. She made mistakes but we all have.

 

[Kitty1224]

True but while Charles is religious I don't think that William is, and he may not feel the same dedication.. may in his day feel that there are things to be said in favour of passing on the throne when he is elderly...

I think if William is not religious then in my opinion that's a bit of a problem because he will one day be Head of the Church.

 

[Osipi]

It not end up to be much of a problem at all as it may be very possible that by the time William becomes king, there will be a separation of church and state in the UK. It happens.

Not that this has anything to do with Diana's legacy. I don't really remember Diana having an overly religious and/or spiritual nature herself.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Why would she court the press if she was already getting too much press?

Diana was not averse to Press coverage, but she insisted on controlling the type of press coverage she got. The key word here is CONTROL. Much like Jacqueline Kennedy a generation earlier, she was not at all averse to fawning, flattering coverage that conformed to the image of herself that she wanted the world to see.

Paparazzi tabloid stories not only did not follow the script of controlled coverage, it became intrusive and ultimately dangerous and indirectly fatal.

 

[Denville]

Hm? I think it is quite obvious that she ddi, though she wasn't perhaps brought up to regular church going or educated in her relgion. However, she was certainly interested in religious and spiritual matters.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree. The late princess was not conventionally religious...she was fascinated by astrology and New Age beliefs.

But in the final weeks of her life while on a Greek holiday with her friend Rosa (Monckton?) she spent time in an Orthodox chapel where she is said to have lit candles and prayed for her children, telling her friend how much she loved them.

(***from the biography by Anne Edwards***)

 

[Denville]

I think she frequently went to churches to pray, there were rumours in the 90s that she was considering converting to Roman Catholicism, and she studied Islam when she got interested in marrying a Muslim. But I thnk she also had an interest and a longing for religious support, even if she did not have a standard background or education in it.. but that's hardly uncommon for people of her class.

 

[Kitty1224]

Diana was not averse to Press coverage, but she insisted on controlling the type of press coverage she got. The key word here is CONTROL. Much like Jacqueline Kennedy a generation earlier, she was not at all averse to fawning, flattering coverage that conformed to the image of herself that she wanted the world to see.

Paparazzi tabloid stories not only did not follow the script of controlled coverage, it became intrusive and ultimately dangerous and indirectly fatal.

Oh I see. She wanted to control the press but couldn't. The media and her to an extent are at fault since the media crafted the perfect princess image and Diana went along with it which made her into a superstar in the British monarchy and after her separation and divorce she became an icon. Someone said on here that Diana made people care more about royalty esp the British monarchy around the world. She had a special intangible quality about her which a lot of people do not have.

 

[Osipi]

Oh I see. She wanted to control the press but couldn't. The media and her to an extent are at fault since the media crafted the perfect princess image and Diana went along with it which made her into a superstar in the British monarchy and after her separation and divorce she became an icon. Someone said on here that Diana made people care more about royalty esp the British monarchy around the world. She had a special intangible quality about her which a lot of people do not have.

I seriously doubt that anyone within the "Firm" would ever credit Diana with being a superstar within the monarchy. There were/are more within the working royal family that has done and accomplished far more in regards to the monarchy than Diana ever did.

Sure, Diana did bring a lot of people into awareness of the British royal family and the monarchy but not all of it was in a good way. In fact, the entire period of the "War of the Wales" was not exactly the image the monarchy was happy with at all.

Her legacy, to this day, rests in the two boys that came into this world because of Diana. It is through them that Diana mostly will be remembered as time passes.

 

[Lady Nimue]

But she was a super star. There's no getting around that. She sold wherever she showed up and that's a fact. Had nothing to do with who in the BRF did more worthy work than she did (like Anne). It will be the same when (or if) Meghan marries Harry: there will be no rational reason why she will out-clock the Queen, or Charles, or even Kate, but she will (for a good while).

BTW the 'fairy tale princess' thing strikes me as understandable. She was young and pretty, marrying a real-life prince. The projection onto her (and them as a couple) was immediate. Started with the priest conducting the marriage ceremony. Didn't he reference their marriage as a fairytale, with everyone's marriage being a fairytale? That was helpful.

Diana didn't have to foment anything, it was pretty much pre-packaged. No one much cared (in the BRF, I would think) as long as it was adulatory and everyone minded their p's and q's. However, as everyone knows, as much as the tabloids love to build up the image, they positively relish the take-down. Once the take-down began, Diana unwittingly cooperated (initially), and the veneer of a fairytale princess was well and good put into the grave by the late 80's.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

But yet no one can ever be as popular as Diana was when she was Princess of Wales and after her divorce. So she was very special. She made mistakes but we all have.

1. Diana's popularity don't even came close to that of the Queen (if there are people who says that, then they don't listen to facts or polls). HM is (as commentators/experts says) the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world. Some of it has (of course) to do with her being the head of state in 16 countries and the figurehead of 2 billion people.

2. William was more popular than Diana from 2011-2013. And he still is (if you compare polls).

3. Harry is now way more popular than what Diana was (if you compare polls).

4. Alive: Diana was adored by the minority who liked her, disliked by the minority who didn't liked her, while the majority didn't care.

5. Now: Diana was barely mentioned in the British press between the 10th and 20th anniversary of her death, and the majority of brits at my age didn't even know or care about her at all. But she is still adored by her fans and disliked by those who isn't her fans.

6. And to describe the divisive/controversial Diana as popular or beloved is just wrong and does not consist with facts.

7. I love and adore the Queen, but I understand and accept that the 'Paradise Papers thing' (who really has nothing to do with HM at all) has affected her popularity.

8. I'm a big fan of William and Kate, but I understand and accept that their popularity isn't what it once was.

9. I admire and like Charles, but I accept that he is controversial and decisive. And I accept (especially after the 20th anniversary of Diana's death) that he again is unpopular.

10. So perhaps Diana fans can learn something from me. You can still love/like her while you also realize and accept that she is controversial and divisive.

11. And I (for one) thought these threads had gone back to sleep.

BTW, Here's a post I wrote about Diana's popularity compared to other royals:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...es-august-31-2017-a-42008-42.html#post2014647

And here's a detailed post I wrote about the popularity of the Queen and other members of the BRF:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/camilla-and-the-public-6965-59.html#post2003377

In addition to the polls in that post and even more amazingly, a CNN poll from January 2017 shoved that the Queen was the person with the highest approval rating in the US with 79%, Pope Francis came second with 66%.

Her popularity in this world is just amazing and (as Sky News Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said some days ago) ''the Queen remains the House of Windsor's greatest asset''.

 

[Kitty1224]

But she was a super star. There's no getting around that. She sold wherever she showed up and that's a fact. Had nothing to do with who in the BRF did more worthy work than she did (like Anne). It will be the same when (or if) Meghan marries Harry: there will be no rational reason why she will out-clock the Queen, or Charles, or even Kate, but she will (for a good while).

BTW the 'fairy tale princess' thing strikes me as understandable. She was young and pretty, marrying a real-life prince. The projection onto her (and them as a couple) was immediate. Started with the priest conducting the marriage ceremony. Didn't he reference their marriage as a fairytale, with everyone's marriage being a fairytale? That was helpful.

Diana didn't have to foment anything, it was pretty much pre-packaged. No one much cared (in the BRF, I would think) as long as it was adulatory and everyone minded their p's and q's. However, as everyone knows, as much as the tabloids love to build up the image, they positively relish the take-down. Once the take-down began, Diana unwittingly cooperated (initially), and the veneer of a fairytale princess was well and good put into the grave by the late 80's.

Yeah Diana was a superstar something we have not seen in the British monarchy in a very long time and after her death we have not seen anyone like her ever again. So makes me think she was a rarity can't be duplicated. She should everywhere she went and was also credited for resorting relationships to Britain when on royal tours. She was a great asset.
Diana still to this day has the best picture perfect princess and second is Grace Kelly.

1. Diana's popularity don't even came close to that of the Queen (if there are people who says that, then they don't listen to facts or polls). HM is (as commentators/experts says) the most beloved, popular, iconic, famous and most successful head of state (many would say person) in the world. Some of it has (of course) to do with her being the head of state in 16 countries and the figurehead of 2 billion people.

2. William was more popular than Diana from 2011-2013. And he still is (if you compare polls).

3. Harry is now way more popular than what Diana was (if you compare polls).

4. Alive: Diana was adored by the minority who liked her, disliked by the minority who didn't liked her, while the majority didn't care.

5. Now: Diana was barely mentioned in the British press between the 10th and 20th anniversary of her death, and the majority of brits at my age didn't even know or care about her at all. But she is still adored by her fans and disliked by those who isn't her fans.

6. And to describe the divisive/controversial Diana as popular or beloved is just wrong and does not consist with facts.

7. I love and adore the Queen, but I understand and accept that the 'Paradise Papers thing' (who really has nothing to do with HM at all) has affected her popularity.

8. I'm a big fan of William and Kate, but I understand and accept that their popularity isn't what it once was.

9. I admire and like Charles, but I accept that he is controversial and decisive. And I accept (especially after the 20th anniversary of Diana's death) that he again is unpopular.

10. So perhaps Diana fans can learn something from me. You can still love/like her while you also realize and accept that she is controversial and divisive.

11. And I (for one) thought these threads had gone back to sleep.

BTW, Here's a post I wrote about Diana's popularity compared to other royals:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...es-august-31-2017-a-42008-42.html#post2014647

And here's a detailed post I wrote about the popularity of the Queen and other members of the BRF:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/camilla-and-the-public-6965-59.html#post2003377

In addition to the polls in that post and even more amazingly, a CNN poll from January 2017 shoved that the Queen was the person with the highest approval rating in the US with 79%, Pope Francis came second with 66%.

Her popularity in this world is just amazing and (as Sky News Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said some days ago) ''the Queen remains the House of Windsor's greatest asset''.

What makes you think Will and Kate popularity is not the same as it once was?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Yeah Diana was a superstar something we have not seen in the British monarchy in a very long time and after her death we have not seen anyone like her ever again. So makes me think she was a rarity can't be duplicated. She should everywhere she went and was also credited for resorting relationships to Britain when on royal tours. She was a great asset.
Diana still to this day has the best picture perfect princess and second is Grace Kelly.

Again, that does not consist with facts. The Queen on the other hand is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling).

And as a historian put it in the DF in 2012: ''Diana was a great diva, but there's only been one royal superstar over the past 60 years'' (he meant HM).

What makes you think Will and Kate popularity is not the same as it once was?

What makes me think that? Facts and Polls.

Why isn't their popularity the same as it once was? Because William has very unfairly been called boring, uncharismatic, lazy and work-shy for about 3 years now (even been called arrogant and a insult to the Queen's legacy).

Kate has very unfairly been caled boring, uncharismatic and lazy for about 4 years now.

Perhaps you (at least it looks like that to me) don't follow the BRF very closely?

I went through it in detail in the posts I linked above.

It will be the same when (or if) Meghan marries Harry: there will be no rational reason why she will out-clock the Queen, or Charles, or even Kate, but she will (for a good while).

Diana, Kate and Meghan did/will outshine the Queen when it comes to fashion, but I'm 10000% sure that Meghan won't ''out-clock'' 70th years of iconic duty and dedication to the UK and Commonwealth alike.

Out-clock Kate? Perhaps for a few years, but not more than that.

 

[Osipi]

When I think about it, popularity means absolutely nothing at all. People become popular for different reasons. Diana's popularity was a blip on the screen for a relatively short period of time.

There's good popularity, there's bad popularity (as in the case of Adolph Hitler. he pretty much is still recognized just by his name years after the end of WWII) and then there's flash in the pan popularity that happen in trends and things that go viral for 15 minutes and are gone again.

I have to say that with the discussion of the difference in popularity between the Queen and Diana is that the Queen has steadfastly remained on top unfailingly for her entire lifetime and with that she's earned respect and admiration. Diana made a lot of glossy magazine covers and was photogenic and drew crowds wherever she went but, and this is a big but, she also did things that caused her to lose respect and admiration by her own actions.

If we were really to measure it all, Diana had far more "negative" popularity than most others in the British Royal Family. People followed her wondering what she was going to pull out of her hat next.

 

[Missjersey]

When I think about it, popularity means absolutely nothing at all. People become popular for different reasons. Diana's popularity was a blip on the screen for a relatively short period of time.

There's good popularity, there's bad popularity (as in the case of Adolph Hitler. he pretty much is still recognized just by his name years after the end of WWII) and then there's flash in the pan popularity that happen in trends and things that go viral for 15 minutes and are gone again.

I have to say that with the discussion of the difference in popularity between the Queen and Diana is that the Queen has steadfastly remained on top unfailingly for her entire lifetime and with that she's earned respect and admiration. Diana made a lot of glossy magazine covers and was photogenic and drew crowds wherever she went but, and this is a big but, she also did things that caused her to lose respect and admiration by her own actions.

If we were really to measure it all, Diana had far more "negative" popularity than most others in the British Royal Family. People followed her wondering what she was going to pull out of her hat next.

Osipi, you are so spot on. I keep going back and forth reading these and am stuck within myself getting past writing down a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I totally totally agree with everything you have posted.

 

[Kitty1224]

When I think about it, popularity means absolutely nothing at all. People become popular for different reasons. Diana's popularity was a blip on the screen for a relatively short period of time.

There's good popularity, there's bad popularity (as in the case of Adolph Hitler. he pretty much is still recognized just by his name years after the end of WWII) and then there's flash in the pan popularity that happen in trends and things that go viral for 15 minutes and are gone again.

I have to say that with the discussion of the difference in popularity between the Queen and Diana is that the Queen has steadfastly remained on top unfailingly for her entire lifetime and with that she's earned respect and admiration. Diana made a lot of glossy magazine covers and was photogenic and drew crowds wherever she went but, and this is a big but, she also did things that caused her to lose respect and admiration by her own actions.

If we were really to measure it all, Diana had far more "negative" popularity than most others in the British Royal Family. People followed her wondering what she was going to pull out of her hat next.

Her popularity wasn't a blip. If it were no one would care about her anymore yet they still do and this is worldwide. You seem to forget that she was a force when it comes to charming leaders on royal tour and building relationships for Britain too.

Where is the evidence that Diana expected the RF to 'stop' Charles' affair with Camilla? I've never heard this before. Isn't it a bit ironic that you posit Diana as wanting the RF to stop Charles but not her? Double standard? I don't think Diana expected anything of the sort btw. She was playing by the unwritten rules of the aristocratic marital game. She was too deep into her own affairs to be fingering the RF about Charles' one on-going indiscretion imo.

Of course she was wrong and she was more wrong to start thinking she was bigger than the RF and that she could walk out on them and work on her own with a tenous connection with them. But I don't think she was "against teamwork" as such. Had she and C worked out, as she seems to have said, they could have been a great team, with her doing the "talking to people" side of it and his doing the serious speeches stuff.[/QUOTE]

We have to remember how dramatically her public activities shifted once she was divorced, but it began while she was separated. Am I mistaken on this? Her Panorama lament about she and Charles being a 'good team' was Diana looking back through a haze to an earlier time she had by then irrevocably lost: royal tours and royal receptions. Gone. It was like she was trying to ask for it all back, for it to be as it was, but humpty-dumpty would never get put back together again. Diana simply never respected Charles enough, in the end. Like you said, she dismissed him and his family and thought the lustre she had acquired by becoming Charles' wife, was her lustre by some sort of 'right'. Unlovely, that.

What makes you think that luster she had was of her right? Maybe she was used to that lifestyle I mean she was 20 when she married. She has been accustomed to it.

 

[Leopoldine]

Her popularity wasn't a blip. If it were no one would care about her anymore yet they still do and this is worldwide. You seem to forget that she was a force when it comes to charming leaders on royal tour and building relationships for Britain too.

I have to ask: What relationship(s) did she build?

 

[Kitty1224]

I agree. The late princess was not conventionally religious...she was fascinated by astrology and New Age beliefs.

But in the final weeks of her life while on a Greek holiday with her friend Rosa (Monckton?) she spent time in an Orthodox chapel where she is said to have lit candles and prayed for her children, telling her friend how much she loved them.

(***from the biography by Anne Edwards***)

So she wasn't a Christian?

 

[Winnie]

Diana mean absolutely nothing to most of the world's 30 and under population, excepting the British. Most Americans under 30 can't even name her when they see her picture. They could care less who or what she was. It is like anyone else; entertainers, sport figures, world royals, etc. A few decades after their death their lives fade. Diana died young and pretty in awful circumstances which we will always think of as sad but it was just one in many awful events that year. Even members of our own family lives fade after many years. They might be thought of occasionally but they no longer affect our lives daily. Diana will certainly be mentioned in history books as the birth mother of a king but the fanatical worship of her will be a thing of the past. It happens, it is life. By the time George is king [if ever] Diana will be just a nice picture hanging in a gallery and George's immediate family will be aces.

 

[Kitty1224]

Diana mean absolutely nothing to most of the world's 30 and under population, excepting the British. Most Americans under 30 can't even name her when they see her picture. They could care less who or what she was. It is like anyone else; entertainers, sport figures, world royals, etc. A few decades after their death their lives fade. Diana died young and pretty in awful circumstances which we will always think of as sad but it was just one in many awful events that year. Even members of our own family lives fade after many years. They might be thought of occasionally but they no longer affect our lives daily. Diana will certainly be mentioned in history books as the birth mother of a king but the fanatical worship of her will be a thing of the past. It happens, it is life. By the time George is king [if ever] Diana will be just a nice picture hanging in a gallery and George's immediate family will be aces.

You don’t know that. Diana to this day is still very well known. I think your underestimating Diana’s impact.

I have to ask: What relationship(s) did she build?

When on royal tours. Read articles and mostly documentary about her. She had a special quality and power about her.

 

[Curryong]

If Diana meant nothing in the history of the royal family, if her popularity was such a brief blip, how to explain the many documentaries and articles in the media twenty years after her death?

This was a woman who was intensely human whatever her faults and she wanted to make a difference. Hence her adoption of unpopular causes like AIDS and Landmines.

I saw her several times in her lifetime. I saw people's reaction to her in crowds. I'm old enough to remember a BRF that was considered out of touch, members who never hugged ordinary people, or chatted in a down to earth way to members of the public they met, perhaps sharing a giggle, who never got down to ground level to speak to little children, who never went over and spoke to people waiting for them behind barriers, who never sat by a hospital bed or wheelchair holding someone's hand.

She visited some patient's families privately and became great friends with them. Did other royals do that then or before Diana? Perhaps Kate Kent? I doubt whether any of the others did. A person at an AIDS hospice spoke of Diana putting her on her knee when she was a child and the comfort she felt from it.

She told Harry about it on his visit to the same hospice and that was well over twenty years later. She still remembered. There are people I know who met her and over thirty years later can still remember her smile, what she said, her beauty, the twinkle in her eye, the warmth she exuded.

When you can't remember those things it's natural to be dismissive but to me and to thousands like me Diana humanised the royal family, and I'm not talking about respect. The Royal family has always had respect through my lifetime. Diana is remembered with love by many and for the reasons I've just stated above.

Yes, she had her faults, her weaknesses, her flaws, but so does everyone, and that includes every other Royal, and every one of us.

However, if I lived on in people's hearts the way that Diana has among those who remember her I would feel proud, and I think that's how how her sons feel, extraordinarily proud. Because in the end, she made a difference, she really did.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Diana mean absolutely nothing to most of the world's 30 and under population, excepting the British. Most Americans under 30 can't even name her when they see her picture. They could care less who or what she was. It is like anyone else; entertainers, sport figures, world royals, etc. A few decades after their death their lives fade. Diana died young and pretty in awful circumstances which we will always think of as sad but it was just one in many awful events that year. Even members of our own family lives fade after many years. They might be thought of occasionally but they no longer affect our lives daily. Diana will certainly be mentioned in history books as the birth mother of a king but the fanatical worship of her will be a thing of the past. It happens, it is life. By the time George is king [if ever] Diana will be just a nice picture hanging in a gallery and George's immediate family will be aces.

I have to disagree. Diana is a celebrity icon in the same way Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley are. Interest in her has little to do with the royal family anymore. It has a lot to do with the fact that she was an attractive world known woman who died tragically at a young age. That's why there was the over the top coverage of the 20th anniversary of her death-there is still interest.

 

[Osipi]

No one is denying that Diana did good. She did. She came onto the world stage for a short time and took it almost as if by storm. Storms pass though and the sun comes out again.

I think you're building Diana up to be much more than she really was. Most of us here have come to see Diana from many different angles. We don't see her as "Princess Diana" (which by the way is a title she never held) or a "fairy tale princess" and see her as Diana, Princess of Wales. A person. Not her popularity. Not her fashions. Not her public appearances and photographs but as a troubled person that had a lot of issues in her life that not only affected her but also her relationships with those around her and had wider repercussions that weren't exactly qualifying her for "sainthood". It got to the point that the British government was calling her a "loose cannon".

Sure Diana is still well known. So is Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, John F. Kennedy and a whole lot of other people that were on the world stage. Each of them have their own section of the public that is interested in these people. Outside of royal watchers and those that lived through the Diana years like I did, there just simply isn't the interest.

Life goes on.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Everytime I visit these threads (and that's not often), I come into these wild discussions about her popularity, but when people can say that ''no one can ever be as popular as Diana was'', then I have to say somthing.

Her popularity wasn't a blip. If it were no one would care about her anymore yet they still do and this is worldwide. You seem to forget that she was a force when it comes to charming leaders on royal tour and building relationships for Britain too.

This will be my last post discussing this, but as I said in my previous post, the Queen has done that for over 60 years, and the same goes for other BRF members.

And back to Diana: She damaged and turned a revered institution into her own soap opera, attacked her husband on television, embarrassing and treating the Queen like crap (calling the royal family for germans) and putting the future of her own sons at risk. And she did nothing for charity compared to Charles and other members of the family. Thats her legacy. I'm saying that Charles is blameless? Of course not, but that is another discussion.

And Osipi is right, Diana drew crowds wherever she went, but so did Charles in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

And compared to the crowds the Queen drew in the 50s 60s and 70s (yes other times) and 80s and 90s and for her Golden and Diamond Jubilee tours around the UK, the crowds for Diana were nothing.

Still in this day and age when she dossn't do walkabouts anymore, 16,000 people come out to see the Queen sitting in a cloced car for her visit to Leicester in April for the Maundy Service.

And Curryong (as you know) I really appreciate your posts, but I think you should read points 7, 8, 9 and 10 in post 1997.

BTW, I edited post 2000 (due to my dyslexia) right after I wrote it.

 

[Kitty1224]

If Diana meant nothing in the history of the royal family, if her popularity was such a brief blip, how to explain the many documentaries and articles in the media twenty years after her death?

This was a woman who was intensely human whatever her faults and she wanted to make a difference. Hence her adoption of unpopular causes like AIDS and Landmines.

I saw her several times in her lifetime. I saw people's reaction to her in crowds. I'm old enough to remember a BRF that was considered out of touch, members who never hugged ordinary people, or chatted in a down to earth way to members of the public they met, perhaps sharing a giggle, who never got down to ground level to speak to little children, who never went over and spoke to people waiting for them behind barriers, who never sat by a hospital bed or wheelchair holding someone's hand.

She visited some patient's families privately and became great friends with them. Did other royals do that then or before Diana? Perhaps Kate Kent? I doubt whether any of the others did. A person at an AIDS hospice spoke of Diana putting her on her knee when she was a child and the comfort she felt from it.

She told Harry about it on his visit to the same hospice and that was well over twenty years later. She still remembered. There are people I know who met her and over thirty years later can still remember her smile, what she said, her beauty, the twinkle in her eye, the warmth she exuded.

When you can't remember those things it's natural to be dismissive but to me and to thousands like me Diana humanised the royal family, and I'm not talking about respect. The Royal family has always had respect through my lifetime. Diana is remembered with love by many and for the reasons I've just stated above.

Yes, she had her faults, her weaknesses, her flaws, but so does everyone, and that includes every other Royal, and every one of us.

However, if I lived on in people's hearts the way that Diana has among those who remember her I would feel proud, and I think that's how how her sons feel, extraordinarily proud. Because in the end, she made a difference, she really did.

I agree. She was special and still no princess after her as had the same reaction she has had in life and in death.

 

[Leopoldine]

I agree. She was special and still no princess after her as had the same reaction she has had in life and in death.

Thank goodness!

 

[Osipi]

Thank goodness!

I agree. The last thing we need is another Diana. One was enough.

 

[Kitty1224]

Thank goodness!

It will never happen again because Diana was one of a kind just like The Queen is, MJ, Elvis, Monroe, JFK, Princess Grace.