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

[Monika_]

I respectfully disagree with your comments. First, Diana didn’t want to leave the RF as you suggest; she wasn’t willing to live a lie and ultimately that’s where the path took her. Perhaps she didn’t make the best choices along the way, and she acknowledged some of that before she died, but she did what she felt she had to do under extraordinarily unique and public circumstances. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the situation had the silent approval of the RF. Even the QM, who hated Wallis Simpson, turned a blind eye to it by making Birkhall available to Charles and company.

Secondly, Diana most certainly does have an enduring legacy, and it isn’t the media circus she had no control over immediately after and since her death. What about her work with AIDS/HIV sufferers, leprosy, the homeless, landmines, cancer, children’s charities, eating disorders, etc., etc.? Even after she lost her title, she continued to work with those less fortunate. Countless world leaders, humanitarians and dignitaries knew, understood and appreciated the real Diana and what she had to offer. (And yes, even millions of her silly ‘fans.’) They spoke of her contributions and the terrible loss her death represented. That, and her sons, is her legacy.

 

[jcbcode99]

I don't have a persistant need to pounce on the negatives of her memory; Diana was really a great face for mulitple charities and it cannot be disputed that she was instrumental in bringing attention to social issues like AIDS and to issues such as land mines; her charity work is something quite respectable and she had a wonderfully bubbly, compassionate personality which accompanied it. I don't believe I disparaged any of that in my recent post; what I did not do was clarify myself. What I should have said was that regardless of what she did in the way of charitable work in the time after her divorce, it will forever be overshadowed by the media circus which surrounded her until and after her death. And, in all honesty, she was in some part responsible for it. She enjoyed, craved, and needed that attention and affirmation which helped her shape who into who she became.

Also, I do believe that by her actions during her time as HRH The Princess of Wales were her own, she made choices (not great ones) of her own volition that have lead many to form the opinion that she "wanted out" but wanted to maintain her status as an HRH. Diana was really, in my opinion, the embodiment of someone who had a need for vengence and could be quite hateful if she wanted (ie pushing her stepmom down the stairs). I think she was quite good at manipulating people to gain what she wanted and if someone managed to upset her, well, that person was out of her life. I think she is not someone to be revered, looked up to, worshipped, etc.... because of her choices and behavior. I certainly believe she would have matured out of all of that, but unfortunantly, she died before she could fully evolve away from it. Thus, her legacy, to many people, is not especially significant outside of being the mother of the future King and his brother and needs no recognition other than what has already been done and accomplished on her behalf. As I recall, she did announce that she intended to retire from public life--which indicates that she wanted to be a simple, normal person. I do believe she was an exceptional mother and that her legacy lives on in her children, but I do not think that portraits need to be up of her and that countless statues need not be erected in her memory. I'm sure she would rather the money spent on statues go to a worthy charity.

 

[Monika_]

Thanks for the clarification. As for Diana's actions, well, again, the circumstances were extraordinary and there's that line about walking in someone else's shoes...

 

[jcbcode99]

I quite agree! I enjoyed our discussion!

 

[sirhon11234]

Well I beleive the Princess of Wales' portraits should stay. At the time of her divorce BP did say that she would still be regarded as a member of TBRF and they should still uphold that in death.

 

[ghost_night554]

To me I look up to her for her charity work and probably as a mother. Some of her actions...weren't all that great and I acknowledge that but she did live under a microscope..maybe she did force that upon herself in some ways but I do think there was a great deal of intrest even from the early days and I guess people who live under that sort of microscope are judged in every which way so I suppose Diana felt pressure not only in her marriage but her personal life, so perhaps due to that and maybe the way she was rasied she made mistakes she would later regret but I feel as time went on she would have learned to deal with the pressure alot better.If I could teach the younger generation about her in any way it would definitly be the great charity work she did.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

As much as it seems important that she's the mother of a future king, historically they aren't that important. If they are well loved Queens then they are remembered, but generally even the consorts fade into obscurity. A challenge for those who want to try, name the consorts of Kings George I to IV, William IV and even further back.

George I. = Sophie Dorothea of Brunswick (the "princess of Ahlen)
George II. = Caroline of Ansbach (enlarged Kew Gardens)
George III = Sophie Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strehlitz (flower Regina Strelitiae is named after her)
George IV. = Caroline of Brunswick (the uncrowned queen)
William IV. = Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen.

Further back is easy:
Anne Stuart = George of Denmark
Mary II. Stuart = William of Orange
James II. = Mary of Modena
Charles II. = Catherine of Braganca
Charles I. = Henriette Anne of France
James I. = Anne of Denmark
Mary I. Stuart = among others Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

a.s.o.

It's not so difficult if you're interested in history. Marriages were political unions during these times and as we can see with the Georges' marriages, they felt secure in their British position but realised that their German possessions were under constant threat from Prussia, so formed alliances to inherit from relatives (the Brunswick-princesses, Brunswick was reigned by the "Hanovers" as well, all branches of the Welf-dynasty), to Prussia (the Ansbachs were a branch of the Prussian Hohenzollern) or with Prussia's rival Saxony. For that reason marriages with the Danish RF were favoured as well. In 1866 Prussia annected Hanover. By then Victoria was already queen of the UK, so the lines of the British and the Hanover-Welfs had already separated.

 

[Elspeth]

This thread isn't going to turn into another Camilla-Charles-Diana eternal triangle battle, I hope.

I don't know why people find it necessary, when someone says something negative about Diana, to come back with "Well, and what about Camilla! Yah!" as though that somehow cancels out the previous post. If you don't agree with something that someone else says about Diana, then by all means say so, but leave other people out of it unless there's some very specific need to talk about them.

Elspeth
for the British mod team

 

[Skydragon]

Well I believe the Princess of Wales' portraits should stay. At the time of her divorce BP did say that she would still be regarded as a member of TBRF and they should still uphold that in death.

Very many of them are still displayed. Whilst it is true the NPG took them down, they said it was only to clean them and many were put back up.

Galleries replace their portraits of various members of the RF periodically (when finance allows) and I don't think any disrespect is meant to anyone who is replaced. Some of Diana were taken down in Wales and replaced with the current Prince and Princess of Wales, that again is within the natural order. When the time comes, if William is made Prince of Wales, Charles and Camilla's portraits will be replaced.

 

[Skydragon]

I respectfully disagree with your comments. First, Diana didn’t want to leave the RF as you suggest; she wasn’t willing to live a lie and ultimately that’s where the path took her.

Diana must have realised that after the Panorama interview, the public confession to her complicity in the Morten book and her affair with Hewitt, there would be no other option open to her.

Secondly, Diana most certainly does have an enduring legacy, and it isn’t the media circus she had no control over immediately after and since her death. What about her work with AIDS/HIV sufferers, leprosy, the homeless, landmines, cancer, children’s charities, eating disorders, etc., etc.? Even after she lost her title, she continued to work with those less fortunate.

Her work for AID's and Landmines will possibly not be forgotten, but the connection with many of the others has already been forgotten. As far as I can recall or find, Diana was never associated with any eating disorder charities.

 

[TheTruth]

I think we are a little too pessimistic concerning Diana not being really remembered. Just look at the numbers of places, buildings, etc. named in her honour; quite scary in fact :
Princess Diana Memorials

Her work for AID's and Landmines will possibly not be forgotten, but the connection with many of the others has already been forgotten. As far as I can recall or find, Diana was never associated with any eating disorder charities.

I can't remember either but she made a speech in 1993 about it : Diana, Princess of Wales Speech on Eating Disorders

It's really too bad that the work for Barnardo's ( was also supported by Princess Margaret), Help the Aged or the Leprosy mission was diminished if not ignored nowadays. The work of time, I believe.

 

[Skydragon]

I think we are a little too pessimistic concerning Diana not being really remembered. Just look at the numbers of places, buildings, etc. named in her honour; quite scary in fact :

Not really, how many of us think about Princess Alexandra or Queen Mary when we read about those hospitals? People don't, IMO, think about the person it was named for when they visit a hospital or building! Come to that, how many people think about the Prince of Wales when they go to a public house of that name! The QM had her fans and many places were named for her, but it is the family that 'remembers' her as a person. As with anyone, time eventually dims the memory.
I had no idea Diana was connected with HtA, a thriving and proactive charity nowadays.
----------------
I wonder if any of us would want our families, let alone people who never knew us, to erect memorial after memorial. In one of the worlds religions (I can't remember which one), they say that if you don't let the deceased go, they are unhappily earthbound.

 

[Monika_]

Question...

This thread isn't going to turn into another Camilla-Charles-Diana eternal triangle battle, I hope.

I don't know why people find it necessary, when someone says something negative about Diana, to come back with "Well, and what about Camilla! Yah!" as though that somehow cancels out the previous post. If you don't agree with something that someone else says about Diana, then by all means say so, but leave other people out of it unless there's some very specific need to talk about them.

Elspeth
for the British mod team

Elspeth, I agree with your observation but, IMO, it also seems to work the other way. Why is it that when those of us who admired Diana attempt to discuss her contributions, etc., others feel a need to undermine every single angle? I enjoy a good debate based on substance, but it's the petty meanspiritedness that I find sad and unnecessary. We are referred to as her 'fans' ( in quotes, as if that is negative in some way) and our statements are referred to as 'silly stories.' I understand the reasons for it, but why is it permitted?

 

[Skydragon]

I enjoy a good debate based on substance, but it's the petty meanspiritedness that I find sad and unnecessary. We are referred to as her 'fans' ( in quotes, as if that is negative in some way) and our statements are referred to as 'silly stories.' I understand the reasons for it, but why is it permitted?

The silly stories are the ones that are exaggerated beyond all credence. The 'training by the SAS', when examined turned out to be a days entertainment put on by the SAS for Charles and Diana, that they were able to join in.

Months back there was a debate about whether people were offended to be called 'devotees', 'fans', 'fanatics' etc. It seems to be that no matter what some people are called with regard to their (insert your own word), etc of Diana, they will complain.

The fact is that many don't mind being called fans of whoever.

 

[TheTruth]

Not really, how many of us think about Princess Alexandra or Queen Mary when we read about those hospitals? People don't, IMO, think about the person it was named for when they visit a hospital or building! Come to that, how many people think about the Prince of Wales when they go to a public house of that name! The QM had her fans and many places were named for her, but it is the family that 'remembers' her as a person. As with anyone, time eventually dims the memory.

I know what you mean. Perhaps I tend to react at the view of names/titles of places because we don't have this very often in France. The Georges Pompidou Centre in Paris was called this way because he contributed to it. Otherwise, public place don't usually have the name of someone. It seems that it's much rarer here than in other countries.

As you know, Camilla is doing a grand job for Barnardo's. I had no idea Diana was connected with HtA, a thriving and proactive charity nowadays.
-----

It's a great thing Royals keep supporting a specific charity this way.

 

[Skydragon]

I know what you mean. Perhaps I tend to react at the view of names/titles of places because we don't have this very often in France. The Georges Pompidou Centre in Paris was called this way because he contributed to it. Otherwise, public place don't usually have the name of someone. It seems that it's much rarer here than in other countries.

The Brits are strange in that way, among others I recall 'Mandela Way', 'Baron Tyler Street', 'Windsor Avenue', Princess Street, Princes Street, Queen Elizabeth Road, most of the time you only notice them because you had to use them. I came across this article and I am firmly with the child, not because of any ill feeling towards Mother Teresa or Diana.

"some officials at Lewisham Council, which will make the decision, are firmly backing the Mother Teresa option because of the area’s strong links with India. They are said to feel that Diana Road would not be appropriate for Lewisham. The council will reveal the winner in April. One suggestion, made by a schoolchild, has already been ruled out. The youngster wanted it to be called ’Just Another Road’"

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth, I agree with your observation but, IMO, it also seems to work the other way. Why is it that when those of us who admired Diana attempt to discuss her contributions, etc., others feel a need to undermine every single angle? I enjoy a good debate based on substance, but it's the petty meanspiritedness that I find sad and unnecessary. We are referred to as her 'fans' ( in quotes, as if that is negative in some way) and our statements are referred to as 'silly stories.' I understand the reasons for it, but why is it permitted?

Criticism is always permitted, just as it is in any discussion if someone thinks a negative aspect of a subject is being whitewashed. However, if the criticism starts looking like mean-spirited bashing for the sheer sake of it, then the mods are likely to step in. We don't appreciate someone coming into a thread about Camilla's charities and dragging it off course with "but Diana was soooo much better at this, and had all these charities, and blah blah blah" and we don't appreciate someone coming into a thread about Diana's charities and carrying on about how Camilla is sooo much more sincere and not just doing it as a photo-op and so on. In threads where comparisons are appropriate, that's fine. But if someone turns up in a thread like this to say she thinks Diana's legacy isn't going to be all that remarkable, which is a perfectly reasonable position to hold as long as some of the reasons are given, hitting back about Camilla isn't relevant. By all means argue the point where Diana is concerned, and also bring in historical examples of princesses and queens whose legacy is known. If you think someone is being unjustly negative about Diana, then address that point with some substantive arguments about Diana, and if the person won't leave it alone, just agree to disagree and bow out. You can make a person look like an obsessed fanatic if you marshal some facts and argue your point substantively and they still won't see reason. If you get sucked into a battle of the icons, you'll end up looking as obsessed as they are.

If you think people are getting away with stuff they shouldn't be getting away with in some of the threads, please feel free to PM the mods. We don't always catch everything, and sometimes we underestimate the degree of bad feeling that can result from some of these exchanges.

 

[sirhon11234]

Ok let's just lower down the heat in this thread..

It makes feel so happy that there are memorials dedicated to the Princess not only in G.B. but around the world.

 

[Monika_]

Criticism is always permitted, just as it is in any discussion if someone thinks a negative aspect of a subject is being whitewashed. However, if the criticism starts looking like mean-spirited bashing for the sheer sake of it, then the mods are likely to step in. We don't appreciate someone coming into a thread about Camilla's charities and dragging it off course with "but Diana was soooo much better at this, and had all these charities, and blah blah blah" and we don't appreciate someone coming into a thread about Diana's charities and carrying on about how Camilla is sooo much more sincere and not just doing it as a photo-op and so on. In threads where comparisons are appropriate, that's fine. But if someone turns up in a thread like this to say she thinks Diana's legacy isn't going to be all that remarkable, which is a perfectly reasonable position to hold as long as some of the reasons are given, hitting back about Camilla isn't relevant. By all means argue the point where Diana is concerned, and also bring in historical examples of princesses and queens whose legacy is known. If you think someone is being unjustly negative about Diana, then address that point with some substantive arguments about Diana, and if the person won't leave it alone, just agree to disagree and bow out. You can make a person look like an obsessed fanatic if you marshal some facts and argue your point substantively and they still won't see reason. If you get sucked into a battle of the icons, you'll end up looking as obsessed as they are.

If you think people are getting away with stuff they shouldn't be getting away with in some of the threads, please feel free to PM the mods. We don't always catch everything, and sometimes we underestimate the degree of bad feeling that can result from some of these exchanges.

Elspeth, I appreciate your reply. Equally, I hope you can appreciate that there's a bit of confusion where boundaries are concerned. I totally agree with moderators when they ask people to stick to the topic and I can understand why some of us (Diana admirers) might be asked to post our comments in a Diana thread if a discussion starts getting off topic. The irony is that when we do that, we find we aren't free to do it here either.

 

[Skydragon]

It makes feel so happy that there are memorials dedicated to the Princess not only in G.B. but around the world.

I truly hope you are sitting down.... I too am glad there are memorials to her.

 

[sirhon11234]

I'm not that happy but it does bring a smile to my face to hear about the memorials.

 

[Skydragon]

I'm not that happy but it does bring a smile to my face to hear about the memorials.

I think I know what you mean, something along the lines of, you wish she was still here so that the memorials were not required, but as she has gone, she should be remembered.

 

[sirhon11234]

Exactly Skydragon.

 

[jcbcode99]

I am also pleased that there are memorials to the late Princess because she was the mother of the future monarch and was truly loved by the people. It would have been inappropriate to not remember her after her death, and would also have been very insulting to her children. I also think that it is appropriate for family portraits (Charles, Diana, the boys) to be displayed because it is a part of history and to not do would be offensive to the boys as well. However, I do think that she need not be cannonized or looked up in a worshipful manner. However, as the deceased mother of the future monarch she is accorded a certain level of respect (example, the state funeral) but not a return to her former status, if anyone understands what I mean? It seems to me that many people feel that it is Diana's legacy to forever be the victimized HRH Princess of Wales, but to me she was the ex-wife of the PoW and mother of the monarch. I suppose it is hard to disassociate her from the title she held, but she is not really on the same level as Queen Mary, QEQM, Princess Margaret, etc... but those honors have been accorded to her regardless. She deserves to be remembered, but not "in your face" all over the place, if that makes any sense.

 

[TheTruth]

2nd Warning
​

If this thread should once again be turned into an accusation office, I would really wonder if it's still the point of creating threads to talk about Diana when the only name we can read is Camilla. As Elspeth said, stop waving the Camilla card at each comment. We already had a War of the Waleses, it's not on TRF that it will start again.

If another bolded message should appear, it would be to close the thread and let everyone calm down. I truly hope this won't be the case.

TheTruth
British Forums Moderator.​

 

[MARG]

The silly stories are the ones that are exaggerated beyond all credence. The 'training by the SAS', when examined turned out to be a days entertainment put on by the SAS for Charles and Diana, that they were able to join in.

I don't understand the problem. The example quoted is what it is . . . exaggerated beyond all credence. It is factual and therefore truthful but more importantly it does not say anything derogatory nor negative about the late Princess Diana.

It highlights the fact that Princess Diana's memory is not well served by exaggeration, as it provokes an almost imediate response which seems to almost always be seen as an attack on her memory instead of a question about the specific post.

The truth speaks for itself and does not need to be embroidered. Her charity work lives on and no-one can say she didn't do that which she did. What she did speaks for itself and does not need embellishment.

 

[sirhon11234]

I am also pleased that there are memorials to the late Princess because she was the mother of the future monarch and was truly loved by the people. It would have been inappropriate to not remember her after her death, and would also have been very insulting to her children. I also think that it is appropriate for family portraits (Charles, Diana, the boys) to be displayed because it is a part of history and to not do would be offensive to the boys as well. However, I do think that she need not be cannonized or looked up in a worshipful manner. However, as the deceased mother of the future monarch she is accorded a certain level of respect (example, the state funeral) but not a return to her former status, if anyone understands what I mean? It seems to me that many people feel that it is Diana's legacy to forever be the victimized HRH Princess of Wales, but to me she was the ex-wife of the PoW and mother of the monarch. I suppose it is hard to disassociate her from the title she held, but she is not really on the same level as Queen Mary, QEQM, Princess Margaret, etc... but those honors have been accorded to her regardless. She deserves to be remembered, but not "in your face" all over the place, if that makes any sense.

I don't understand what you mean by not "in your face" all over the place..

It was Charles who treated the Princess like she was his wife when she died. Diana had a semi - state funeral (which isn't even reserved for a Princess of Wales) and a royal standard draped her coffin. IMO her death brought her back into the fsmily she is near to the same level as Mary, Elizabeth and Margaret.

 

[COUNTESS]

She is and will be well remembered. I see her pictures everywhere, even today. It actually, amazes me. She is the spectre that sits over the RF. When I see a picture of Camilla, I, often, see one of Diana along side. I feel sorry for Camilla, for it is hard to constantly be compared to one who was younger and more attractive, but such is life. Privately, I do not know how Camilla feels and what does it matter.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it matters to this thread, because if I see Camilla's name one more time there's going to be deep trouble. Hasn't anybody bothered to read TheTruth's warning?

 

[Odette]

I believe that Diana's true legacy is and will be William and Harry. Everything else will fade in the background and we will all remember a lady who will stay in our memories always young and beautiful, no matter how we felt about her when she was alive.