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

[sirhon11234]

The fact that there are many in Britain and elsewhere, including people here, who regularly call for the succession rules to be put aside shows just how damaging her legacy is - to promote the popularity of the moment or even the individual over the institution itself is damaging to the institution and she put that on the agenda.

The very fact that people here and elsewhere want William to take his father's place shows how much she damaged the perception of the family relationship as well. William has two parents but most people seem to forget that - I even read comments in the lead up to the wedding asking why Charles should be having anything to do with it? That is also a large part of Diana's legacy - she set out to destroy her husband and even from the grave her supporters are still trying to bring about her desire - too bad if that desire might hurt and upset the sons she had with Charles.

The same could be said for some of Charles supporters who set out to destroy Diana as well. The key word I used is some instead of grouping all of the supporters and accusing them of something some of them haven't done.
As to whether she damaged the family relationship she wasn't alone in that Charles also helped.

 

[Aliza]

Diana's legacy is easily expressed: The future King William V (God willing) and his brother, Prince Harry. Their way of conducting themselves, their informality, their sense of how the "common person" lives in the UK and Commonwealth and yes, their charisma along with a good ability to handle the media all speak to Diana's success as a mother.
In addition, I believe the Princess herself would have seen them as her legacy; their upbringing was her number one priority in life and her love for them was absolute and unconditional. In turn, they never let her down, either, and satisfied her need to receive unconditional love to the extent it is possible for children so to do.
She put an enormous amount of thought into the manner in which they were raised, even trying to make sure each cultivated enough "outside" friends early on enough in life so that questions of sycophancy never enters these relationships. She really thought their futures out in minute detail and I believe the results are obvious for all to see.
Now before anyone jumps on me, of course I recognise the role the Prince of Wales played as well, but that is not the question addressed by this thread. (Although the amount of vitriol served up to Diana by a few posters makes me wonder if former members of Prince Charles' household, particularly those who served during the "War of the Waleses", are posting here, lol.)

 

[NotHRH]

Diana, Princess of Wales' legacy only proves that fairy-tales of profound happiness and a perfect life, do not exist in the real world. Like most, she found that out the hard way. I only have praise for the late Princess of Wales.

 

[Catherine J]

The fact that there are many in Britain and elsewhere, including people here, who regularly call for the succession rules to be put aside shows just how damaging her legacy is - to promote the popularity of the moment or even the individual over the institution itself is damaging to the institution and she put that on the agenda.

Yes, I agree with this. Royalty does not, nor should it, have anything but an incidental relationship with celebrity. Royalty trumps. Celebrity is the result of royalty - the reverse is a perversion. It might be largely ceremonial, in this case, but it is a matter of both constitution and culture - society and politics joins never so easily as in a Monarchy and I consider it a vital aspect of my identity and my country's stability. To have it appear subservient to the public's whimsy is a dangerous ground. My grandmother would call it a slippery slope.

Diana appears to have believed the power of popularity and celebrity could alter one of the most fundamental safeguards of a thousand year old monarchy. This, in itself, indicates a very weak mind, if not an irrational or disordered one. Whilst a monarchy wants to be popular and relies, as a whole, upon the goodwill of the people, the manner of its workings are etched in old stones and its stability relies upon ... well, its stability. Which some might read as intransigence or rigidity or even, ahem, regal arrogance. It is what it is and it sits at the core of successful monarchies.

It is my belief that William is well aware of the important mistake she made in this regard. He has commented on the preposterous nature of the notion that he should leapfrog over his father to the throne.

Whatever good she did, and I see a lot of it - right down to opening up the Monarchy a little (although there is that famous quote about letting too much light in will let some of the magic out - was that King George V?) and the clearly loving manner in which she chose to mother her children - the damage she *almost* did, willful and selfish as it seems to have been, makes her historical footnote, in my opinion, not dissimilar to the Duke of Windsor.

 

[Catherine J]

Diana's cautionary tale, is never marry a man who is married to someone else in his heart. Never marry a man who will envy any of your accomplishments. Never marry into a family that has no innovative thought, until it is screamed for. Never marry into a family that sees itself better than you.

Your opinion comes from so vastly different a place than mine that I sometimes forget *that* side of things is important to people, too. It's good to have the reminder

I come from the school of stoics, I am afraid. As far as I am concerned, she was obligated, as was Charles, to suck it up, accept the personal sacrifice being married to one another might mean, put on the show-face and fulfill their roles. He asked. She said yes. They had children. They were in line to the throne. They both needed to step up. I can't say who failed first or who caused the failure - but it is my distinct impression Charles would have done just that. Stepped up and played the game like a good Prince of Wales. I can't imagine being married to either of them was a piece of cake.

I am old enough - or just of that old school mentality - that says you do not put self ahead of duty - whatever the duty is.

Frankly, while I have human sympathy for her suffering, as a subject of the realm, I had a greater need of her than her own personal happiness and she let me down. She put herself ahead of the countries to whom she was to be Queen. It's ironic that it is, like with Edward VIII, only in their failure to achieve/keep the role that we learn we were better off without them. It would seem that the royal family has a self preservation gene - the really unfortunate ones self destruct

Sorry to waylay your post.

I appreciate that the personal aspects of Diana's experiences must seem overwhelming to many people.

 

[Mia_mae]

If Diana's legacy is a weaker monarchy, that is a consequence primarily of the marriage. And that is half/half. Prince Charles was the one who should be more concern about his position. said that before and will repeated, cause it will always come down to this for me: She was 19, he was the 32year-old one. He should've know better!

While watching Prince William' wedding it became even more clear to me that the only reason some are willing to wait for Charles it's because William is Diana'son and will be next.
(Even if I don't share the same views, I believe Prince Charles has proven himself and regardless is deserving of the throne).

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Yes, I agree with this. Royalty does not, nor should it, have anything but an incidental relationship with celebrity. Royalty trumps. Celebrity is the result of royalty - the reverse is a perversion. It might be largely ceremonial, in this case, but it is a matter of both constitution and culture - society and politics joins never so easily as in a Monarchy and I consider it a vital aspect of my identity and my country's stability. To have it appear subservient to the public's whimsy is a dangerous ground. My grandmother would call it a slippery slope.

Diana appears to have believed the power of popularity and celebrity could alter one of the most fundamental safeguards of a thousand year old monarchy. This, in itself, indicates a very weak mind, if not an irrational or disordered one. Whilst a monarchy wants to be popular and relies, as a whole, upon the goodwill of the people, the manner of its workings are etched in old stones and its stability relies upon ... well, its stability. Which some might read as intransigence or rigidity or even, ahem, regal arrogance. It is what it is and it sits at the core of successful monarchies.

It is my belief that William is well aware of the important mistake she made in this regard. He has commented on the preposterous nature of the notion that he should leapfrog over his father to the throne.

Whatever good she did, and I see a lot of it - right down to opening up the Monarchy a little (although there is that famous quote about letting too much light in will let some of the magic out - was that King George V?) and the clearly loving manner in which she chose to mother her children - the damage she *almost* did, willful and selfish as it seems to have been, makes her historical footnote, in my opinion, not dissimilar to the Duke of Windsor.

I agree with you entirely Diana was not mallicious, but she was extremely foolish, and her actions damaged The Monarchy for years. Fortunatley the recovery is happening.

 

[Mia_mae]

Well, we at least can agree that the British Royal family has learn a great deal with the past 2 decades and the future generations will be and are benefiting from it.

 

[NotHRH]

Some almost-harsh words about the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it is fantastic that differing opinions about the late PoW have been expressed. This has only opened my eyes to things I had not realized about her. I still do believe HisRH, the PoW, should have never lied to himself about his feelings about the then-future-Duchess of Cornwall. I think he married Diana to please the masses who had been speculating marriage for him all of his adult life. IOW, he married Diana for all the wrong reasons, while she married him for the right reasons. Her heart of gold existed in her naivitee, and as time progressed and she matured, her heart was simply shattered into many pieces with the realization of the obvious. Being used by the main players in the BRF, probably kicked Diana the gut many, many times. It is one of the most devastating feelings to ever deal with. I was happy for her when she began to start a new life for herself, but tragically .........
She is 'for the ages' now, and rests in
peace.

 

[MARG]

I agree with you entirely Diana was not malicious, but she was extremely foolish, and her actions damaged The Monarchy for years. Fortunately the recovery is happening.

I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.

 

[Renata4711]

I don't think I would make a comparison between Diana and the Duke of Windsor.

The two scenarios are very different.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.

I hardly see Diana as a victim. I just don't want to make a blanket statement given the theories about her mental health.

 

[Catherine J]

I don't think I would make a comparison between Diana and the Duke of Windsor.

The two scenarios are very different.

Oh yes, vastly different. And still, there is the underlying theme that both the DoW and the PoW felt their own personal happiness more important than the stability of the monarchy and took steps to ensure their own happiness that actually damaged the monarchy.

Henry VIII was similar except that in Henry's day he could reasonably expect to be able to force such changes as were needed to make his happiness complete- Kings and Queens were powerful in those days.

 

[Zonk]

Henry VIII was basing his opinions/actions on the Divine Right of Kings theory.

 

[Catherine J]

While watching Prince William' wedding it became even more clear to me that the only reason some are willing to wait for Charles it's because William is Diana'son...

The notion that people feel "willing to wait" is ... strange. It implies a choice. It implies we run the monarchy by popular vote. We wait because Charles is next and then William. I like William, frankly, despite the fact that his mother seems to have suffered from some form of mental instability which would be a terrible thing to sit latent in such a promising young man. But even so, like or dislike, it's Charles and then William and that's the way it is - whether we be willing or unwilling.

I think *this* - the notion that we're somehow in charge of the succession by our popular opinion - is, sadly, Diana's most enduring legacy.

 

[Catherine J]

Henry VIII was basing his opinions/actions on the Divine Right of Kings theory.

Yes, indeed. Little bits (vague and theoretical and devoid of religious context as they are) of which color my own perception of the modern monarchy.

 

[Mirabel]

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.

I agree with this. I think one problem is that Diana had no patience- she wanted what she wanted, right NOW.

An example of this is the way she went about getting rid of Camilla, basically just demanding she be gone. A clever woman would have worked slowly and carefully, learning from the way Camilla handled Charles, and then gradually undermining her. It would have been possible in the early days of the marriage.

As it was, the Monarchy suffered, but so did Diana.

 

[Aliza]

Some almost-harsh words about the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it is fantastic that differing opinions about the late PoW have been expressed. This has only opened my eyes to things I had not realized about her. I still do believe HisRH, the PoW, should have never lied to himself about his feelings about the then-future-Duchess of Cornwall. I think he married Diana to please the masses who had been speculating marriage for him all of his adult life. IOW, he married Diana for all the wrong reasons, while she married him for the right reasons. Her heart of gold existed in her naivitee, and as time progressed and she matured, her heart was simply shattered into many pieces with the realization of the obvious. Being used by the main players in the BRF, probably kicked Diana the gut many, many times. It is one of the most devastating feelings to ever deal with. I was happy for her when she began to start a new life for herself, but tragically .........
She is 'for the ages' now, and rests in
peace.

Beautifully put and very true, IMHO.

 

[Aliza]

I beg to differ. She was malicious, very malicious. Bad mouthing her stepmother was not nice but not unusual, shoving her down the stairs? Now that was. Very!

Dumping Fergie when she fell out of favour. Chillingly cold how she could not just both cut her out of her life but also effectively sent her to Coventry.

Slapping your father's face was definitely not foolish. It was cold and it was malicious, right up there with throwing out her stepmother's clothes in rubbish bags after said father died.

As for suggesting the father of her children was not really fit to be King? Foolish? Calculated malice more like.

It annoys me that people refer to Diana as young and innocent. She grew up and she grew smart, and she was often not nice and unfortunately saved her malice for public consumption, e.g. Diana: Her True Story, the Panorama interview, etc.

Diana was an adult who made adult decisions. Unfortunately many of those were ill advised. The entire Monarchy suffered as a result. Not least her children.

I can't quite decide if some members of TRF are relatives of Charles' former private secretary, Richard Aylard,or if they are Richard Aylard himself and his wife... JK.

The next time I see the Princess described as "paranoid of the Establishment" I will completely understand how she came to that state of being. Almost fourteen years since her death and the amount of vitriol and sheer nastiness bandied about concerning a dead lady with no way to defend herself just takes my breath away. And I am far from being part of the "let's sanctify Diana" crew; she did make many mistakes and had many faults - she was human, just like all of us.

As I've already posted, her sons are her legacy. So too is the pared-down Monarchy, more in touch with the people. All the staunch old-school Monarchists seem to miss the point that by bringing a human face, complete with mistakes, back to the Royal Family - she probably ensured its continuance. Why else has the Queen implemented so many of the changes Diana had pushed for?

 

[Catherine J]

Almost fourteen years since her death and the amount of vitriol and sheer nastiness bandied about concerning a dead lady with no way to defend herself just takes my breath away.

Such is the nature of historical discussion. None of the former members of the RF are here to defend themselves. Their lives and actions are their only defense. Diana is a historical figure and I, for one, discuss her more in the abstract with no regard for the "respect for the dead" we afford private citizens because ... well, she wasn't a private citizen.

I believe it is important to understand Diana and her legacy, as it were, so that mistakes, if made, won't be repeated. This is the value, as Churchill well knew, of historical rumination. This is *huge* stuff - the stuff of stable or unstable monarchies - entire cultural ways of life. Maybe part of the problem is that Diana did not, herself, understand how much bigger and more important than herself it is/was. Maybe. It's purely conjecture on my part.

And I am far from being part of the "let's sanctify Diana" crew; she did make many mistakes and had many faults - she was human, just like all of us.

No, she wasn't. Well, yes she was human like the rest of us - but her actions affected an entire society and is it not the nature of royalty that they occupy positions that render them something slightly "more" than a rank and file human citizen? This sets them to a higher standard - whether that seems "fair" or not, in a human to human way.

As I've already posted, her sons are her legacy. So too is the pared-down Monarchy, more in touch with the people. All the staunch old-school Monarchists seem to miss the point that by bringing a human face, complete with mistakes, back to the Royal Family - she probably ensured its continuance. Why else has the Queen implemented so many of the changes Diana had pushed for?

I will directly disagree with the notion that Diana "ensured" the "continuance" of the monarchy. But it's too big an argument to tack onto this smaller bit

Let's shift the context for the sake of illustration...

So, if my fifteen year old throws a tantrum in the store and gets what he wants (let's say it was an ice cream) so that I can get along with my day (or whatever reason one gives into tantrums) and the result is that ice cream is now part of all shopping trips - is this a good thing? Sure, it's good for the kids. Until the fourteen year old figures we should have donuts, too. And then the twelve year old decides a chocolate bar would be good also. So, we continue making shopping trips, the kids get what they want and I have lost all authority and the "institution" of my parenthood has been damaged in serious and insidious ways.

I really do get confused by the notion that (a) we ought to treat this figure like a simple human being in terms of the post mortem analysis, so to speak and (b) publicly humiliating the Monarch and the entire BRF is seen to have a "net positive" effect.

That said, I admit to an intellectual stridency on the topic

 

[Mia_mae]

The notion that people feel "willing to wait" is ... strange. It implies a choice. It implies we run the monarchy by popular vote. We wait because Charles is next and then William. I like William, frankly, despite the fact that his mother seems to have suffered from some form of mental instability which would be a terrible thing to sit latent in such a promising young man. But even so, like or dislike, it's Charles and then William and that's the way it is - whether we be willing or unwilling.

I think *this* - the notion that we're somehow in charge of the succession by our popular opinion - is, sadly, Diana's most enduring legacy.

But it is! The notion of people willing to wait is the reality (as much as you and I don't agree with). Monarchy needs popularity, but they need it in their own terms. If they loose people's approval they will be overthrown.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Would there have been a need for this thread if the following scenario had occured? First we must assume that, for Charles, Camilla was, and remains, the love (what ever that word means to him) of his life. It then follows that what he felt for Diana,- given that he didn't fall OUT of love with Camilla only to fall IN love with her again-was something less. So, the time has arrived when Charles has to find himself an appropriate bride-enter Diana Spencer. However, before he pops the question he tells her "Now look here, old thing, you're a jolly girl, I'm very fond of you and I think my parents are keen for us to marry. However, before you give me an answer, I must tell you that I'm very fond of-well, actually I'm in love with someone else, sorry Darling, did you say "Who?" well, actually, it's Camilla. Yes, I know you had lunch with her yesterday. Actually, it was she who said that you would be a good choice. Darling, please don't cry, I can't cope with tears. No. this doesn't change anything, you as my wife will be The Princess of Wales and when the time comes Queen Consort, hopefully, before then, once we've established that everything down there is in working order, you'll be the mother of my children-think you'll be good at that, worked with children, didn't you? Anyway Darling, you have a think on it....Oh, nearly forgot, they're bringing a tray of rings for you to look at tomorrow morning"
I wonder how those of us, closer to HRH in years and experience would have coped with such a scenario let alone a teenaged aristocrat thirteen years his junior-at her age I'm certain I would have believed myself to be a match for an old trout of 30plus. I believe an older woman would have stood a better chance of making it work in her favour.

 

[Mia_mae]

Would there have been a need for this thread if the following scenario had occured? First we must assume that, for Charles, Camilla was, and remains, the love (what ever that word means to him) of his life. It then follows that what he felt for Diana,- given that he didn't fall OUT of love with Camilla only to fall IN love with her again-was something less. So, the time has arrived when Charles has to find himself an appropriate bride-enter Diana Spencer. However, before he pops the question he tells her "Now look here, old thing, you're a jolly girl, I'm very fond of you and I think my parents are keen for us to marry. However, before you give me an answer, I must tell you that I'm very fond of-well, actually I'm in love with someone else, sorry Darling, did you say "Who?" well, actually, it's Camilla. Yes, I know you had lunch with her yesterday. Actually, it was she who said that you would be a good choice. Darling, please don't cry, I can't cope with tears. No. this doesn't change anything, you as my wife will be The Princess of Wales and when the time comes Queen Consort, hopefully, before then, once we've established that everything down there is in working order, you'll be the mother of my children-think you'll be good at that, worked with children, didn't you? Anyway Darling, you have a think on it....Oh, nearly forgot, they're bringing a tray of rings for you to look at tomorrow morning"
I wonder how those of us, closer to HRH in years and experience would have coped with such a scenario let alone a teenaged aristocrat thirteen years his junior-at her age I'm certain I would have believed myself to be a match for an old trout of 30plus. I believe an older woman would have stood a better chance of making it work in her favour.

the "jolly girl" was a marvelous selection. I can actually hear Prince Charles saying it.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. The nobility and royalty were the people who funded the artists in days past and gave them a forum in which to display their work. They didn't rub shoulders with celebrities in order to increase their own popularity and power.

I too believe that the Crown is important to Canada's stability. I fear that, as a republic, we would simply be a pale shadow of the US without our own identity.

I think that William and Catherine will try to turn back the tide of "celebrity royalty". They've shown signs during the last several years that they aren't going to contribute to the celebrity machine on an ongoing basis.

...although there is that famous quote about letting too much light in will let some of the magic out - was that King George V?)

That was Walter Bagehot in his work The English Constitution.Walter Bagehot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I think that William and Catherine will try to turn back the tide of "celebrity royalty". They've shown signs during the last several years that they aren't going to contribute to the celebrity machine on an ongoing basis.

I see this as well, and I'm glad about it. I don't think Royals should stay within the confines of the palace, and wear tweed suits, but Diana went much too far into celebrity territory.

 

[Catherine J]

But it is! The notion of people willing to wait is the reality (as much as you and I don't agree with). Monarchy needs popularity, but they need it in their own terms. If they loose people's approval they will be overthrown.

Agreed - the Monarchy as a whole exists because the public over whom they reign are tolerant of that reign. In the modern world this is generally expressed with a negative proof (they have not been abolished by an act of government which is acting upon public demand).

But I do not believe the public has a right (except in extreme circumstances such as illness, insanity, an evidently immoral character, criminal acts, etc.) to dictate the terms of said Monarchy except for those terms which are contradictory to the laws the country in question passes/has passed into being. They might make requests and express opinions, naturally - but I think the moment a Monarchy allows anything so fundamental as succession laws to be dictated by a popularity contest, it is already overthrown and has become nothing but an ornament. Ornaments always break, sooner or later.

That said, I believe it is the obligation of the Monarchy to be responsive to the opinions/needs of its subjects and sincere in its consideration of their requests. In the vernacular, one should not make demands of the Queen, one must make requests. The tiny little line between a demand and a request is the one that keeps us civilized, I believe.

 

[Catherine J]

I see this as well, and I'm glad about it. I don't think Royals should stay within the confines of the palace, and wear tweed suits, but Diana went much too far into celebrity territory.

Indeed They should be modern, but I am SO looking forward to some dignified behavior befitting a future King and Queen.

I think Charles is a decent man at the end of the day and will prove to be a very good bridge Monarch - one between the old and the new. William and Catherine will have a good period of time to establish their own court and decide on the manner of their reign.

It will be nice to feel proud of the royal family again.

 

[COUNTESS]

Quite a joke. Their faces plastered on every magazine and periodical. A rush for a trip to Canada and the States, where they will be photographed a million times. They are the poster children to keep the monarchy from falling into the cracks of old age and middle age indifference. An aged, but loved queen and a middle aged and frumpy heir and his, slighly tarnished wife. These two will be seen as much as possible, to make sure the monarchy holds the interest of the masses.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that William and Catherine will try to turn back the tide of "celebrity royalty". They've shown signs during the last several years that they aren't going to contribute to the celebrity machine on an ongoing basis.
.

Diana thought she could control the 'celebrity' machine and couldn't.

William and Kate will find the same thing - especially with activities like the upcoming one in LA - very much the celebrity do - it is the event to be at this year for the LA celebs - why - because William and Kate will be there.

They are celebrities - that is what the modern royalty has become - thanks to Diana - and William and Kate simply won't be able to ignore the fact that that is their role for the rest of their lives - to feed the celebritiy mentality of the populace.

 

[Mermaid1962]

They were both blonde and charismatic. Both had a public face and a private face. People believed in both of them but were let down. Edward VIII at least had the wisdom not to cause a crisis by bringing his case to the people.

I don't think I would make a comparison between Diana and the Duke of Windsor.