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

[sirhon11234]

I can't recall if Anne supported HIV people before the late Princess but they both showed support by the end of the 80s. Which was wonderful.

 

[Skydragon]

Stop it this isn't a playground.

I can't see why you have a problem. At one end of the scale you have the bottom feeders (normally the media) and the other end you have the people that only see a pretty frock.

 

[MARG]

And the members of this forum neatly club-sandwiched between.

 

[sirhon11234]

I can't see why you have a problem. At one end of the scale you have the bottom feeders (normally the media) and the other end you have the people that only see a pretty frock.

Because sometimes the level of maturity here astounds me. And it has nothing to do with your post.

 

[TheTruth]

Maturity in Diana threads has always been a problem. It'd be amazing if one day this changed into a respectful place to exchange opinions. I guess our oldest members know too well where fights in these threads lead to. We're just asking for people to temperate their posts and think about how other people who don't believe the same things might take the comment. If everyone does that I'm sure we'll be able to relax and stop jumping on the slightest word someone wrote.

 

[jcbcode99]

Maturity in Diana threads has always been a problem. It'd be amazing if one day this changed into a respectful place to exchange opinions. I guess our oldest members know too well where fights in these threads lead to. We're just asking for people to temperate their posts and think about how other people who don't believe the same things might take the comment. If everyone does that I'm sure we'll be able to relax and stop jumping on the slightest word someone wrote.

Well said, Kelly! I agree completely--and the lack of maturity and the overall tone of this thread is why I pretty much quit posting--but I always said that I thought she was spoiled, vindictive, and petty--with a nice tiara--while married to Charles. However, once she was able to establish her own image, seperate from his, I think she was able to mature immensely and become a better person. So, not necessarily a "hater" here, but more of a realist. Reading the last two pages of posts I am astounded at the number of persons who did not grow up in her time, so to speak, who think she was just amazing and mistreated--the fairy tale turned ugly--and none of it her fault, they mistakenly believe. Marriage is at two way street.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well said, Kelly! I agree completely--and the lack of maturity and the overall tone of this thread is why I pretty much quit posting--but I always said that I thought she was spoiled, vindictive, and petty--with a nice tiara--while married to Charles. However, once she was able to establish her own image, seperate from his, I think she was able to mature immensely and become a better person. So, not necessarily a "hater" here, but more of a realist. Reading the last two pages of posts I am astounded at the number of persons who did not grow up in her time, so to speak, who think she was just amazing and mistreated--the fairy tale turned ugly--and none of it her fault, they mistakenly believe. Marriage is at two way street.

I haven't read a comment in the past 2 pages that said that Diana wasn't partly responsible for the breakdown of her marriage. IMO you and other people aren't wrong for thinking that she wasn't amazing. But by the same token, people who thought she was aren't wrong either.

 

[Little_star]

IMO alot of the cynicism and negativity regarding Daina is found in places like the UK. Internationally and particularly in developing countries she is often remembered for her charity work and the impact it had on people.

 

[sirhon11234]

A lot of the Brits that I have met, aren't fans of Diana but also aren't fans of TBRF either. Some I have met are fans of both but the majority aren't.

 

[Lighthouse]

I saw Princess Diana when I was a young girl in 1988 and despite the enormous crowd cheering for her she barely managed a wave. I remember commenting about this to my family at the time. I mean no disrespect but I think she was over it all at that stage.

 

[MARG]

And therein lies the problem. Yes she probably was "over it" but it seems she wanted it to be on her terms and she wasn't taking any prisoners.

The seperation and too long delayed divorce changed a lot of things. If I am not mistaken she and Charles had reached a rapprochement (a reconciliation involving the reestablishing of cordial relations), unfortunately, as Skydragon pointed out;

The controversial aspects of her life will also be remembered, the passage of time is rarely kind, at least not IMO.

News, in it's millenium incarnation, is only the bad, the sad, and the unrepentant.

 

[Warren]

I haven't read a comment in the past 2 pages that said that Diana wasn't partly responsible for the breakdown of her marriage.

That's because this isn't the place for an endless rehash of the "who was to blame" finger-pointing and those posts have been (and will be) removed.

 

[scooter]

But Warren, it's very difficult to discuss the actual history of what took place and why certain people remember her, or regard Charles and or Camilla, in a certain way if they cannot answer why they feel that way, based upon an actual historical timeline. I am sorry that history is regarded as a 'who was to blame' finger pointing game, but history is history, regardless of the amount of whitewash applied.

 

[Roslyn]

I think The Truth has given us a clue, only a few posts back, as to how this might be achieved. I've discovered that people are less likely to lunge for the jugular if opinions about controversial subjects are expressed respectfully and as opinions, not fact. This applies to life generally, not just here.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But Warren, it's very difficult to discuss the actual history of what took place and why certain people remember her, or regard Charles and or Camilla, in a certain way if they cannot answer why they feel that way, based upon an actual historical timeline. I am sorry that history is regarded as a 'who was to blame' finger pointing game, but history is history, regardless of the amount of whitewash applied.

But the big conundrum is 'What is history?' and that is an enormous question with no true answer.

There is Diana's version, Charles' version, Camilla's version, The Queen's version, my version, your version, her sons' version, any person who was alive at the time's version, those who were born after her death's version - all are different and all are valid versions of the history of the relationship.

 

[Skydragon]

in a certain way if they cannot answer why they feel that way, based upon an actual historical timeline.

That doesn't appear to be what happens, unless an individual was there, their version can only be from what they have read, heard or seen and the interpretation they choose to put to it. That speaks more of them than a true representation of the very few facts anyone has.

 

[Patra]

But the big conundrum is 'What is history?' and that is an enormous question with no true answer.

There is Diana's version, Charles' version, Camilla's version, The Queen's version, my version, your version, her sons' version, any person who was alive at the time's version, those who were born after her death's version - all are different and all are valid versions of the history of the relationship.

I like what you said, Iluvbertie, and the way you said it, and agree with your point of view regarding history and perspective. Thank you.

 

[Grace Angel]

But the big conundrum is 'What is history?' and that is an enormous question with no true answer.

There is Diana's version, Charles' version, Camilla's version, The Queen's version, my version, your version, her sons' version, any person who was alive at the time's version, those who were born after her death's version - all are different and all are valid versions of the history of the relationship.

Very true, it's a good last word on the subject. I think if you were 4 ( answering earlier posters to this thread) when Diana died, you would only miss her in the historical sense, of missing someone who was a tragic loss before your time. People older at the time of Diana's death (even only knowing her through the media), would perhaps miss her in a more personal sense as they remember more of what it was like when she was alive, when her story was still developing, and you could still wonder what the next chapter in her life would be. I knew who Diana was when I was 4 in the late '80s, certainly, to me she was a glamorous princess in fairytale gowns in photos, but that's about all I knew with regards to her. I was eleven when she died and by that time I knew a lot more about her ( although between the late '80s- mid '90s a lot more about her had come to light for everyone), and followed her story in a more realistic way than thinking she was just a fairytale princess in pretty gowns. I always wondered what the next chapter of her life would be until her life ended all too soon- it was hard fir me to imagine her being older though, back in the days when she was alive. Yes, someone who wasn't that old at the time Diana died can still miss her but in a different sense than someone older at the time, old enough to follow her story through the media, and have it be a part of their world. I was a big fan of Diana's in the last few years before her death. Just my two cents.

 

[gfg02]

courage of women in diana’s footsteps

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Courage of women in Diana’s footsteps

 

[sirhon11234]

Thank you gfg02 a very good read.

 

[emac0914]

Being slightly older than her, I watched Diana from the engagement through her death. I think the BRF (in particular, Charles since he never really seemed to defend her, most likely because he really didn't love or respect her enough) took a fairly (but not totally) innocent, naieve girl, put her into a very high-pressured situation, expected her to pop-out a few heirs and behave exactly like the models were at the time and she just rebelled since it wasn't her nature. Not that she didn't know what was expected of her going in, but did she really understand the total picture or was she "so in love" to put the blinders on.

But look at the good that came out of it all beyond the ugliness of the relationship - two good looking boys and modernization of the monarchy. Diana was solely responsible for opening a lot of people's eyes - the monarchy to put them much more in touch with people and issues and the people's eyes to bring the monarchy more down to their level. The mystic and mystery of the monarchy was taken down a few pegs but it was probably long overdue.

I also agree with the comments that after the separation and divorce, she matured and became her own woman. She still continued with the charity work she loved and was so famous for -- just too bad the press couldn't leave her alone where she shouldn't have been so in the limelight, no longer being in the BRF. It's also too bad that she seemed to have soured to all the public exposure - she still had so much to give to charity because she was so well-known.

 

[gfg02]

Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher and JK Rowling voted among the top 125 women who changed our world

Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher and JK Rowling voted among the top 125 women who changed our world | Mail Online

 

[georgiea]

I think that is wonderful news about Princess Diana. I wish the article listed more of the list. Does anyone know if Princess Grace and Queen Elizabeth II get mentioned?

 

[sirhon11234]

This is very good news! I'm also happy Oprah and J.K. Rowling made the list.

 

[Thomasine]

I think that is wonderful news about Princess Diana. I wish the article listed more of the list. Does anyone know if Princess Grace and Queen Elizabeth II get mentioned?

I am frankly surprised that anyone think Princess Diana did anything that changed the world significantly. To compare her to the likes of Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosewelt and Marie Curie is an insult to them and all the other women who really had/have an impact on the development of the world.

Don't get me wrong, Diana was a beautyful, well meaning person but did she contribute anything significant to change the world? No, she did not. Jody Williams should be in her position on the list.

I have no problems excepting Queen Elizabeth but what ever did Princess Grace do to be on the list? Please enlighten me Georgiana.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Are you aware of the Ottawa Accord? Diana's presence in Bosnia and Angola publicized the push to ban anti-personnel landmines. In this case, I believe that her actions did have an effect.
Tiptoeing around landmines - Los Angeles Times
Did she change the world? No. But she did bring publicity to important causes.

 

[Russophile]

She did and I respect her memory for that. although it is quite sad that she had just sorted her life out and she got caught up in the Fayed's bs. Such potential wasted.

 

[georgiea]

I have no problems excepting Queen Elizabeth but what ever did Princess Grace do to be on the list? Please enlighten me Georgiana.

Grace Kelly for her movies and Princess Grace for her patronages: Red Cross, Arts, Princess Grace Hospital and anything else to help her Monaco subjects. She was very important to Monaco's financial progress by bringing her Hollywood glamor there. Monaco became a tourist spot for the world.

 

[Russophile]

And the Christmas giving for the kids who were not as well off as others. I remember seeing a big picture book--coffee table style-- of Princess Grace and there was a big christmas tree and all sorts of presents scattered about with children everywhere and a smiling Grace.
I'll see if I can't find it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She did and I respect her memory for that. although it is quite sad that she had just sorted her life out and she got caught up in the Fayed's bs. Such potential wasted.

I think that her getting mixed up with the Fayed's is evidence that she hadn't sorted out her life at all but was still seeking something.