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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
How many books and how many times is Diana's story going to be written about and still generate any interest?
Everyone should let the woman rest in peace and move on. I am surprised anyone can still find a publisher to publish yet another angle to the story.
 
I know it's quite shocking people are still going at it. I'm thinking though people are beginning to lose interest, thankfully, I don't know what else can be said to be honest that hasn't already been said.
 
Well, there are good ways and bad ways of commemorating Diana. This is one of the bad ways. Obviously, she still sells books or they wouldn't be published. I'm sure there will be more books about her in the years to come, hopefully more positive ones. Someone always manages to find a new angle.
 
^Yes, I agree. I really hate seeing negative books about her, not saying she was perfect but I think it's best in the long run if we remember the good things she did rather then her bad traits.
 
Well, the books about her death with regards to conspiracy theories are not only negative, but inaccurate. I guess it's the inaccurate books I have the greatest issues with.
 
I know what you mean I've never bought any book related to her death, since most if not all of them seem to focus mainly on promoting the conspiracy theories.
 
ghost_night554 said:
^Yes, I agree. I really hate seeing negative books about her, not saying she was perfect but I think it's best in the long run if we remember the good things she did rather then her bad traits.
Click to expand...


As a history teacher I couldn't disagree more.

A biography of any person must cover both the good and bad of the person otherwise it isn't a biography but a simple book of praise.

Take your comment to its logical conclusion then we can't write a criticism of Henry VIII or any other person.
 
I'm not say ignore her bad traits of course we have to accept them, we can't deny it everyone has flaws in someway. I'm just saying sometimes I personally feel that alot of the good she did do in the time she was around seems to have been forgotten about to some extent because of all the information alot of it being negative that has come out in the last few years. Sorry mods I know I've caused the discussion to go somewhat off topic.
 
Interesting that the 2 articles put a different spin on the story.

I am heartened, however, that some celebrities and royals, such as Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, have continued to work with this worthwhile cause.
 
I think there was negative info about her available in her lifetime too. There were people then who certainly weren't Diana supporters. Obviously in books published after someone dies, there can be even more mention of their negative traits than in books published in their lifetime, it seems. I don't see books with regards to conspiracy theories and her death so much as being negative but rather just sad, and defintely inaccurate.
 
Ya I agree with you, the books related to the conspiracy theories are definitely sad, annoying and just plain inaccurate.
 
will she is the mother of the future king of England....so maybe there will be a place in history..for now she is on the cover of magazines and there are so many books about her..
 
Iluvbertie said:
As a history teacher I couldn't disagree more.

A biography of any person must cover both the good and bad of the person otherwise it isn't a biography but a simple book of praise.

Take your comment to its logical conclusion then we can't write a criticism of Henry VIII or any other person.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more!

Wilst I accept the old adage of "Never speak ill of the dead", I think they meant family members.

Diana is history and history reflects the bias of the writer. However, in the 20th century we were blessed or cursed with an explosion of technology that meant there is more than enough print and elctronic media to research. It is an exceptional author who can actually overcome personal opinion although a lot give it a good shot,

Wiith the resources available it is unforgivable to "gloss over" the unpalatable truths because they are out their in cyberspace for anyone to see.

Books written with an "agenda" can never be taken at face value or you allow your perceptions to be manipulated.
 
I definitely think that there'll be a place in history for her. She had an impact in her day; and once the celebrity aspect of her fame is gone, she'll be remembered for the effect she had--for good or for bad.:flowers:

killer_bee said:
will she is the mother of the future king of England....so maybe there will be a place in history..for now she is on the cover of magazines and there are so many books about her..
Click to expand...
 
Right but I've never been one to gloss over anything like that, although I'm one of those people who has always tried to see the best in people. Actually I've probably done alot of horrible thing in my life too, actually I think we all have. No one is perfect in life everyone screws up somehow at some point that's just human nature. What I originally meant though with my comment is sometimes I feel now with everything that has gone on and how much time has elapsed I think people tend to forget the good things she did do. And I'm sure I'll get people who will say that oh her time for appreciation has come and past and while that may be true, I'm again one of those people who tend to want to remember people as often as possible and not let theyre memory be extinguished. I think that might be because I too have dealt with sudden losses as well so that's probably why I feel that way. Ok wow that was so long I did not mean for it to be that long.

Again mods I am so sorry for going off topic.
 
I understand what you mean, and I agree with you; except that I think that she will be remembered for the good that she did. For one thing, there are so many things named after her.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
A biography of any person must cover both the good and bad of the person otherwise it isn't a biography but a simple book of praise.
Click to expand...

I agree - covering the good and bad is the first step to instigate some distance with the subject. Moreover, I believe the conspiracy books, as cheap and crazy as they can be, have a role in establishing a status in History. For me, even as a complete stranger to an event, you are still involved in it because it happened during your lifetime. And if as a historian, you choose to study Ancient Greece, you still make the choice according to your likings or interests. So from the start, the distance is difficult to maintain. Measuring the good and the bad is, I think, the only adequate alternative to get close to something objective or at least keep your distance.
 
Last edited:
All the craziness about Diana--the conspiracy theories, the War of the Walses, the Morton book, the Panorama Interview, the brief sainthood after her death, and the public obssession with every aspect of her life--says something about what she meant to the people of her time and the things that appealed to us and drove us. That will be important to historians, I believe. Regardless of what a person thinks of Diana, no one can deny that she was a pop culture phenomenon.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I sorta said the same thing in my previous post but I think the problem lately(when I say lately I mean the past few years) maybe it's just the media here where I live I can't comment about everywhere else is that I feel that since the inquest alot of the news reports have been focusing way too much on the bad and not enough on the good. If there was a balance then I'd be a happy with it. I wish people would stop for a bit and remember the good she did do, that's why I brought up my comment originally not to try and say oh let's forget about all the bad she did no of course not that's not right, nor do I think that would be a fair representation. Anyways that's my last little comment about all this well for now atleast. And Mermaid I totally agree with your comment above.
 
I agree with that. Sleaze sells.:ermm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghost_night554 said:
. . . . . . maybe it's just the media here where I live I can't comment about everywhere else is that I feel that since the inquest alot of the news reports have been focusing way too much on the bad and not enough on the good. If there was a balance then I'd be a happy with it . . . . . . . . .
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem! Since the Death of Diana any negative press was pounced on as disrespectful, untrue and hurtful to her sons. Come the Inquest, anyone who cared to follow the case could, and, for the first time people heard really disturbing things about what sort of human being she really was behind the facade she presented to the world.

Balance her affairs and the breakup of the Carling marriage against her stated high moral ground. It didn't, any more than the obsessive phone calls to other mens wives. Her "symbolic" act of holding the hands of an AIDS patient 20 years ago doesn't absolve her from her own indiscretions years later.

We live in an instant world and Diana died way back when but that wouldn't change the way people thought of her with 20/20 hindsight. We all lost a lot of innocence in the Inquest and the discovery that many of Diana's publicity leaked private visits to hospital were merely a ruse to hide her latest love affair kind of took the gilt off the gingerbread. We felt she had deceived us and willfully misled us and so now we look back with jaundiced eyes,

In a few years from now the pendulum will have stopped it's wild swinging and we will probably view the past in a more realistic way.
 
Well, like you just said MARG, time has that great asset to balance the general opinion.
I think it's pretty clear that in History, time has shown its benefits. JFK for example, was an icon at the time of his death but after a few years, we also learned how the "perfect American family" was in fact corroded by his many affairs. Of course, this should never dismiss or damage anything he has done for his country and his people. Because someone committed faults in private (for which we haven't really got the right to judge) doesn't have remove the value of his work. There are two very different things and they don't need to neutralize each other to obtain an objective view on things. You can't see someone all white or all black but you can't dismiss one part of someone's life because the other doesn't fit your criteria or moral standards.
 
And once again TheTruth you have spoken the truth.
The inquest has certainly not changed my opinion of the late Princess of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's important to remember Diana defintely- people say move on, but some things about the past are forever unique, and Diana was certainly unique. Diana was controversial in her lifetime and also after it as well. The inquest didn't change my opinion of her- different people who knew her in person had different opinions, and we'd no doubt have actually had a different opinion than someone else had we known her in person. Everyone has different views of Diana's legacy, which is as it should be.
 
I think better comparisons might even be made with Jacqueline Onassis and Princess Grace. Since their deaths some unsavory revelations have been made, but in general their reputations have fared well.
 
That's true. I'm not familiar with what was said about Jackie after her death, although I know her husband's affairs came more into the light, but Princess Grace was revealed to have had affairs before her marriage, and according to some, after. I think people had more of an idea of the negative stuff about Diana during her lifetime than they did with either Jackie or Grace.
 
Grace Angel said:
I think it's important to remember Diana defintely- people say move on, but some things about the past are forever unique, and Diana was certainly unique. Diana was controversial in her lifetime and also after it as well. The inquest didn't change my opinion of her- different people who knew her in person had different opinions, and we'd no doubt have actually had a different opinion than someone else had we known her in person. Everyone has different views of Diana's legacy, which is as it should be.
Click to expand...
Your spot on with that comment actually, for example Rosa would have seen Diana in a much different light then the public saw Diana. She saw her in her good times and in her bad since they were good friends for quite some time, while to us we had only seen her in public face, which I tend to believe for the most part was very positive(I'm too young to remember Diana in the early years I only member the last 2 or 3 years of her life) so to us when we heard all the things that she had done or said from the inquest we found it shocking. That's why everyone sees her differently even to this day I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
30K
TLLK
T
Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
534
Tatiana Maria
T
soapstar
Diana Princess of Wales Jewels 3: 2022 -
Replies
23
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom