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

[soapstar]

I've edited and deleted a number of posts regarding the Charles/Diana marriage and 1920's Hollywood stars. Let's stay on topic....Diana's legacy. If you wish to discuss Diana's marriage to Charles, please take it to the appropriate thread.

 

[Kitty1224]

To be sure, Diana was the superstar of her time.

Will Diana endure? Who knows, and if she does what will her image be? A couple of people who've popped up in my mind are Anne Boleyn and Edward VIII / Duke of Windsor.

Back to the superstar thing, to me it is indisputable that Diana was a superstar, and the extensive coverage of the 20th anniversary of her death indicates that she has achieved the kind of cultural eminence that Marilyn Monroe has.

Now here's the rub, I don't see that having a superstar like Diana boosted the institution of the monarchy. If I were the courtier tasked with setting the course for the BRF, having another Diana in the midst would not be on my radar.

P.S.
Just to be clear I am not in any way overlooking or diminishing Diana's good works and the contributions she made to the BRF.

Diana definitely boosted the monarchy!! She made it even more popular.

 

[Osipi]

Diana definitely boosted the monarchy!! She made it even more popular.

OK. I am going to ask for credible sources that back up this statement. Otherwise, this is just another off the wall statement that has absolutely no credible facts behind it.

This is how things are done here. We are expected to be able to back up our statements with credible sources and references. Otherwise, these off the wall statements add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation.

Thank you.

 

[Denville]

of course she boosted the monarchy initially. She was so popular, she was beautifiul, she was loved by the public. She was in the papers every day. Magazine editors have said that her photo on the cover boosted circulation. But in time of course her difficulties with her marriage and gradual alienation from the RF DID cause problems and she did consciously begin to use her popularity and charm against the RF. I think that is blindingly obvious.

 

[Osipi]

I think you've mentioned before, Denville, that Diana with Charles could have been such a wonderfully, powerful team together if only they had been able to sort out their private life and live and love happily together but that wasn't to be. They were just two very different people.

The media quickly discovered that they had a cash cow on their hands with Diana and used that to every purpose possible and it didn't help when Diana started to feed into them for her own purposes. All the good that she ever did for the BRF and the monarchy went right out the window as she used her "star" power against rather than for the good of the royal family. Sometimes I think she got a little too big of a swelled head with her fame and in the long run, that turned against her.

For the most part, Diana used her fame and popularity to work against the BRF and the monarchy. She ended up biting the hand that fed her and spent the rest of her short life trying to put her life back together. Sadly, it ended too soon for her to truly find any happiness.

 

[Pranter]

I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae

 

[M. Payton]

Pranter, that is the best insight into Diana yet that I have seen here. HM made big changes within the monarchy since then and the other members of the family are getting to chose whom they want to marry instead of being told whom to marry, that to me makes a huge difference in one's life and how they are going to go forward with someone they actually love.

 

[Osipi]

I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae

What we saw happen with Kate was a result of learning from what happened with Diana. William and Kate were treated first and foremost as a married couple rather than senior royals working for the "Firm". William also did not go the route of his father and marry out of duty or because all the suitable for a princess boxes were checked off. The stable relationship was there first with William and Kate to build on in the first place which was sorely lacking between Charles and Diana. William also had the advantage of not being in the prime role of heir to the Crown.

This is one of the best changes to the way marriages in the BRF are looked at today and definitely a positive part of Diana's legacy. Its sad that Charles and Diana's union was wrong from so many different aspects but sometimes the best lessons are learned from the worse mistakes made. A positive is created out of a negative.

 

[M. Payton]

Totally agree with you my dear and one thing I want to put in with the BRF is that the negative aspect so the marriage between Diana and Charles has become an *education* for all those involved. An *negative* becomes an *education* in how to make changes in life which they surly have done and the results are great to see today.

 

[Pranter]

Oh I firmly believe one of the reasons Kate and William were 'allowed' to keep a relatively low profile for so long was because of the fiasco of Diana and the media/BRF combined.

Very smart to have W&K slowly building up to where they are now over several years time. I fully expect something similar for H&M...although I suspect by the time they marry they will not wait long to start a family and pregnancy/childbirth will naturally give them more space.

That all said. I remain convinced if Diana and Charles had been allowed to actually spend more time together and date for at least a year they would of never married.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

That all said. I remain convinced if Diana and Charles had been allowed to actually spend more time together and date for at least a year they would of never married.

I agree. The reported 13 dates they went on before getting engaged was not conductive to a lasting relationship. It was more of a "checking off the suitable aspects" in choosing a bride than really forming a relationship.

Without Diana though, so much would be different. Most likely we would never have had her on our radar if she hadn't married Charles all those years ago and the face of the royal family would look so totally different. A lot of changes for the good did come out of the Diana years and her two boys, I think, carry the best part of both of their parents with them into the future.

 

[Pranter]

It's an interesting 'what if'....Charles hadn't married Diana (who would he of married..no one on the radar that I recall) ....Diana would of been totally unknown to us, most likely married to someone of similar background and lived the life of a Sloane.

Charles caved to pressure from the media and when his father told him to make a decision due to how Diana was being hounded...well we know that outcome.

The boys have made up for that disasters era of the Wales marriage. Much more positive outcome from them so far.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

So, then, I think perhaps part of Diana's legacy is a lesson in "how not to make a royal marriage". Its also a lesson to the everyday couple too. Look before you leap.

 

[Pranter]

Certainly that is not the type of marriage to rush into...I think lots of discussion and research would be advised. Most people, IMO, are not going to be willing to live that type of life.


LaRae

 

[Missjersey]

Pranter, M Payton and Osipi..great posts and observations. Totally agree with your words

 

[Pranter]

Or simply...marry in haste, repent at leisure.....as trite as that is.


LaRae

 

[Missjersey]

Can you imagine after 13 dates someone saying “mum I’m engaged”. My parent antenna would go into overdrive to say the least. I bet lessons have been learned.

 

[TLLK]

Pranter, M Payton and Osipi..great posts and observations. Totally agree with your words

I agree Missjersey that these posters have summed up exactly what I believe regarding the BRF and introducing new members to royal life. I believe that Sophie, Camilla and Kate have all benefited from this new policy. I also believe that other European royal families have opted for a gradual introduction for their new consorts too after observing what their UK counterparts encountered in the 1980's and 1990's. IMHO Diana would have also supported this type of slower introduction for William and Harry's spouses. Should Harry and Meghan announce their engagement in the coming weeks/months, I sincerely hope that Meghan will also have a gradual introduction to her royal life and duties. It is far better to establish their relationship as husband and wife before being handed a busy schedule of royal duties IMHO.?

 

[Tsaritsa]

Or simply...marry in haste, repent at leisure.....as trite as that is.


LaRae

I don't think there's any chance that we'll see a return to the tragedy that was Diana and Charles. Their boys have seen to that. We must wait, now, to see what is the Royal marriage format when it's George and Charlotte's turn.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I wonder if Diana had gotten more support she wouldn't of gotten so sucked into the attention from outside sources. A shame she couldn't of had more of a Kate-like introduction to working life in the BRF after marriage.


LaRae

But a problem with that was she married the heir to the throne. He was already a full time working royal with a busy schedule. It worked for William and Kate because they were in a different position.

 

[Lady Nimue]

So, then, I think perhaps part of Diana's legacy is a lesson in "how not to make a royal marriage". Its also a lesson to the everyday couple too. Look before you leap.

Exactly so. And as others have mentioned, her most powerful legacy can be seen in how William defends Kate, especially the willingness to go to court and sue. William's willingness to be litigious, as with the French photos, has changed the pap landscape. The line of cause-and-effect cannot be more clear from Diana to William in this regard.

We can also see it in Harry, though it took him two previous girlfriends to realize how proactive he needed to be with just a girlfriend (not yet engaged/married). Learning curve there.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think there's any chance that we'll see a return to the tragedy that was Diana and Charles. Their boys have seen to that. We must wait, now, to see what is the Royal marriage format when it's George and Charlotte's turn.

I agree...very unlikely (thank God) to see that repeated. I think they will be more like what we are seeing now for years and years to come.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

But a problem with that was she married the heir to the throne. He was already a full time working royal with a busy schedule. It worked for William and Kate because they were in a different position.

Yes I know there is a difference in status at the time...I still think things could of been handled very differently.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

Exactly so. And as others have mentioned, her most powerful legacy can be seen in how William defends Kate, especially the willingness to go to court and sue. William's willingness to be litigious, as with the French photos, has changed the pap landscape. The line of cause-and-effect cannot be more clear from Diana to William in this regard.

We can also see it in Harry, though it took him two previous girlfriends to realize how proactive he needed to be with just a girlfriend (not yet engaged/married). Learning curve there.

Yes exactly. The media poisoned the well for decades to come with the BRF.



LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yes exactly. The media poisoned the well for decades to come with the BRF. LaRae

You misunderstood my point: it was Diana's legacy (not the media's) that I was addressing. It is because of Diana and her interactions with the press, both sought and un-sought, that has impacted what is tolerated now regarding the press and royal spouses. It was not the media (per se) that 'poisoned the well', but the unholy alliance the media forged with their media-darling Diana and her complicity in that whole scenario (unwittingly initiated by Charles himself).

Watch Kate last night in the most recent event: William is clearly (obliquely) attentive to Kate, but more significantly, Kate does not place herself outside of the sphere of William in the whole proceeding. She draws back, allows him pre-eminence in all interactions. She does not see the event as an opportunity to play to the crowd, or the cameras. This 'proper behavior' I see as a direct consequence of Diana. Her legacy is that no royal wife will ever grandstand as she did. (Understanding that Charles had a part in setting that ball rolling, unwittingly, and that there may be some class issues connected with Kate 'knowing her place' that didn't apply in the case of Diana who was seen as 'legitimate' class-wise).

Imagine if Diana had steadfastly refused to separate herself from Charles at all events (a bit as Camilla does now) how differently the whole thing would have gone down. (Not sure she could have done that btw, given Charles' view at the time). However, it is precisely because of the unintended consequences of that pov that we now see a very different spousal presence at events. That's an aspect of Diana's legacy.

 

[Pranter]

Ah gotcha...and very true. That has always pretty much been how things have gone. Now and then she does precede him but not at formal events unless he directs her to do so.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

So in 'keeping her memory alive' what exactly is being 'kept alive'? It is an honest question.

I'm going to take a stab at it. What has been "kept alive" is the years of Diana's public works. Her sons have taken on some of the good works Diana started and this is what I believe they want to keep alive.

From all we've seen of William and Harry, there is a red line drawn in the sand between their private and public lives. I can't see them pushing to keep alive anything pertaining to Diana's private life and the chaos that was their parent's marriage. They focus mainly on the good she did out and among the people.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I'm going to take a stab at it. What has been "kept alive" is the years of Diana's public works. Her sons have taken on some of the good works Diana started and this is what I believe they want to keep alive.

From all we've seen of William and Harry, there is a red line drawn in the sand between their private and public lives. I can't see them pushing to keep alive anything pertaining to Diana's private life and the chaos that was their parent's marriage. They focus mainly on the good she did out and among the people.

Okay, that makes sense on the face of it, but the reality is (imo) what is actually 'kept alive' is exactly all the animus and drama of her private life. By far the heaviest 'legacy' of Diana (in the present) whenever she is brought up is the smear against Camilla that keeps Camilla well and good 'down'. It's unsavory in my view. The woman doesn't 'deserve' it.

 

[Osipi]

I would put the blame of keeping the private life alive on the media. That stuff sells like the latest smart phone. Quite a few royal reporters earned a hell of a lot of money using Diana as their cash cow. The 90s really turned out to be the decade that the British Royal Family was turned into a soap opera and there was a lot of damage done.

 

[aigulminimalist]

Okay, that makes sense on the face of it, but the reality is (imo) what is actually 'kept alive' is exactly all the animus and drama of her private life. By far the heaviest 'legacy' of Diana (in the present) whenever she is brought up is the smear against Camilla that keeps Camilla well and good 'down'. It's unsavory in my view. The woman doesn't 'deserve' it.

I think ppl, media will talk abt her charity work , love triangle, her affairs and relationships with RF.