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

[US Royal Watcher]

If they are claims that Diana did more for her causes than the other royals, then that's a false statement. All members of the royal do a great deal for their causes. It's not fair to put that blame on Diana though. I'm sure she did her thing privately.

I'm sure there are false accusations about the Prince of Wales too. Although I think some people have figured out the way to stick up for Charles is to put Diana down and place a great deal of blame on her. I think that's very unfair to Charles and Diana. None of them are/were saints.

I'm not sure that it is unfair since Diana elevated herself by putting Charles done.

ETA: down. I meant to type "putting Charles down." Sorry

 

[Ish]

I'm not sure that it is unfair since Diana elevated herself by putting Charles done.

I agree.

I also don't think people are trying to put a great deal of blame on Diana just to relieve Charles, so much as they're trying to point out that Diana was a hypocrite. Charles has never slandered Diana in a manner for behaviour that he himself also exhibited, while Diana certainly did so to him.

 

[Dman]

I think it is unfair because I believe in treating everyone the same and it's not right to try to build up other people knocking some else down.

Both Charles and Diana weren't saints but they worked hard on behalf of their charities. They carried out countless official engagements for their charities and hosted dinners, lunches and receptions for their charities.

I put the blame for the false accusations were it belongs, with the media. They had their own agenda and played sides. Everyone and their great-grandmother knows that members of the royal family do a great deal for their charities and organizations of which they are royal patron and president. Singling one out to try to make them look good is wrong and the media did it.

I agree.

I also don't think people are trying to put a great deal of blame on Diana just to relieve Charles, so much as they're trying to point out that Diana was a hypocrite. Charles has never slandered Diana in a manner for behaviour that he himself also exhibited, while Diana certainly did so to him.

Charles allowed his friends to slander Diana so his actions weren't so good either. They both hurt each other but I think it was done out of pain and hurt feelings. Separations and divorce can be ugly and I felt bad that it happened to Charles & Diana.

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles praises Diana's work - YouTube

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I put the blame for the false accusations were it belongs, with the media. They had their own agenda and played sides. Everyone and their great-grandmother knows that members of the royal family do a great deal for their charities and organizations of which they are royal patron and president. Singling one out to try to make them look good is wrong and the media did it.

But Diana is the one who gave the media material. If she hadn't done so, there would not have been so many articles.

Charles allowed his friends to slander Diana so his actions weren't so good either.

Saying that doesn't make it true. Charles's friends deny that. In fact, he often asked his friends not to criticize Diana because he was concerned about the impact the war was having on Harry and William. Jonathan Dimblely said that Charles only gave the interview with the proviso that it not hurt Diana's reputation. Andrew Morton has acknowledge that Charles and the palace had a lot of information they could have used against Diana, but didn't because Charles refused to allow it.

 

[Dman]

I do remember one of Charles's very close friends did go on national TV and criticzed Diana. I think that was Lord Nicholas Soames. There were many of Charles and even Camilla's friends that treated Diana badly and spread rumors too. Diana & Charles's friends didn't help matters at all.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I do remember one of Charles's very close friends did go on national TV and criticzed Diana. I think that was Lord Nicholas Soames. There were many of Charles and even Camilla's friends that treated Diana badly and spread rumors too. Diana & Charles's friends didn't help matters at all.

I saw Soames on Sky News several times. I also remember that he denied that Charles asked Soames to go on TV. Just because Soames knew Charles, it doesn't mean that Charles sent him to criticize Diana. Charles couldn't control all his friends.

On the other hand, we do know that Diana did authorize her friends to criticize Charles publicly.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, indeed. It was always claimed that Diana did more than the BRF, cared more for her causes than they did. I tend to believe people should put the money where there mouth is, and there are many Hollywood celebrities, for instance who do. So I'd say she was no better than the royals it is always claimed she was better than.

Perhaps she did put her money into the causes she wanted to. We don't know. I don't know exactly how many charities and patronages Diana was involved in but it just would seem to be a slap in the face to have it be made known publicly that Diana contributed $10k to The Greater Good Society for the Advancement of the Cross Eyed Purple Platypus and the rest just got a photo-op and a smile. Royals try and maintain that each and every one of their causes is dear to their heart and try not to show favoritism.

As far as how much she did, before she divorced she was carrying out engagements as a senior member of the BRF. It was the Firm and the various offices of the royals that decides who goes where and does what and is approved by the Queen for the court circular. I don't think Diana had much chance to outshine the others when it comes down to the number of engagements. How she handled herself and the press doing them is a different kettle of fish though.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I agree that Diana built herself up by putting Charles down. As a couple, well, I suppose all's fair in love and war , but as a mother, one does not go on TV, have a book written, etc, putting down the father of one's children. That messes up the children.

I also agree that Charles was no saint. It seems that so many times Charles faults are blamed on Charles (as they should be), but when Diana's faults are pointed out it's because, "Oh, Charles never loved her." Not saying that's anyone HERE, that's a prevailing viewpoint "out there."

That's the problem - again, not here, but "out there." Most people's knowledge of Diana stems from People Magazine and Andrew Morton, and not the many, many biographies out there that give a much more evenhanded account of this couple.

 

[Mermaid1962]

As far as I know, being a "patron" of anything, whether being royal or not, involves financial contributions as well as supporting fund-raising.

 

[Dman]

Also, the true account of who Diana was can be found with William & Harry. They can tell you the truth about their mother and father. A truth books and royal experts can't tell you.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Also, the true account of who Diana was can be found with William & Harry. They can tell you the truth about their mother and father. A truth books and royal experts can't tell you.

I dought it very much, that they can. Do YOU know THE TRUTH (what is THE TRUTH about anyone?) about your parents?

I certainly don't - and my parents died when I was in my 40th, and I wasn't in boarding schools and only hat a Nanny, when I was very small.

No one knows THE TRUTH, because there is no truth. There are many facetts to a person, and you only ever see some of them.

 

[blauerengel]

As far as I know, being a "patron" of anything, whether being royal or not, involves financial contributions as well as supporting fund-raising.

I do not know if you have to financially contribute,I always thought that a patron is giving his name&reputation in order to raise the awareness for a certain cause or organisation. Nowadays there are lots of charitable organisations and some are working better while others are not very trustworthy-having the support of a well-known and respected public figure probably helps to raise more funds.

I believe that royals are also sometimes donating their private money next to raising awareness for causes that may otherwise be forgotten. Diana donated some of her designer couture gowns that were auctioned for charity, I do not remember which organisation received the donations, but I know the auction raised a lot of money.

 

[Nico]

At last this video is out ! Thanks Dman.
This footage is often and strangely forgotten. A shame because it really shows that Charles, despite the bad times, deeply respected Diana 's work. They shared the same concern for their charities and did a wonderful job together.
This video shows that Charles was obviously shaken by the loss of his ex wife as well. I always thought that the POW was more or less denied to mourn Diana properly because a part of the public estimated he didn't have the right to do so.

Another video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRnFU-Bwpw

 

[nascarlucy]

As was stated earlier there probably was a lot of things that Prince Charles and the royal family could have used against Diana and I think they didn't because of the children. They probably thought about this before they acted or said anything. If they had brought these things up, the people that would be hurt by this would mostly be Prince William and Prince Harry. This was probably the major reason why they didn't bring things up.

I watched the 1995 interview that Princess Diana gave. I got the impression that what she said was going to anger the royal family especially Prince Charles and the Queen or at the very least they wouldn't like what she said. She had the upper hand and knew that they really couldn't do anything to her legally (they would look bad if they took criminal, legal or civil action against her and it would hurt the children).

She was well liked enough that doing the interview wouldn't make her a social outcast and no one could make her into a social outcast.

What she didn't figure was some of the information that she gave to the interviewer hurt her children. This was not her intention IMO. Had she thought this out, I don't think she would have said some of the things she did.

 

[Mermaid1962]

As it should be. It's in bad taste to talk about the money a person donates to anything.

The royals contributions are usually private.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

As was stated earlier there probably was a lot of things that Prince Charles and the royal family could have used against Diana and I think they didn't because of the children.
What she didn't figure was some of the information that she gave to the interviewer hurt her children. This was not her intention IMO. Had she thought this out, I don't think she would have said some of the things she did.

I agree with your post. Her impulsiveness was one of the most frustrating things about Diana. She knew that the boys had been hurt by the revelations of the Morton book. In 1993 and 1994, there were several articles that claimed Diana regretted her cooperation with the book because of how it affected William and Harry, yet she did the TV interview. How could she not know that it would upset her children?
.

 

[Dman]

I think William & Harry knew their parents were going through a very tough time and was hurting but I think they knew their parents wouldn't do anything to purposely hurt them. Those early 90's weren't that pretty. It was a tough time for the family.

Charles and Diana went on to do great things together and their work was and is very important to them.

I still feel for Charles because he too lost Diana, who was the mother of his children. I'm just glad they weren't enemies towards the end of her life. I think he looked very sad and lonely when she passed. I'm sure his thoughts and prayers remain with her. Now he's happy again with is current wife.
.

 

[cepe]

I think William & Harry knew their parents were going through a very tough time and was hurting but I think they knew their parents wouldn't do anything to purposely hurt them. Those early 90's weren't that pretty. It was a tough time for the family.

I don't think that Diana really grasped what would hurt her children. This is part of an article which writes about Diana's attitude prior to the interview. It relates to a section of Penny Junor's book.

Article
A 13-year-old schoolboy at the time, the young William watched the programme in the study of Andrew Gailey, his house master at Eton, says the book by Penny Junor.

Mr Gailey was said to have insisted that Diana explain face-to-face what she was about to do after learning about the BBC interview, and she eventually “reluctantly” agreed to go to the school.

The meeting lasted no longer than five minutes, during which she assured her son that the interview would “not contain anything controversial” and “would make him proud of her”, according to Junor.

But the young royal was said to have been left in disbelief by the succession of startling claims made by Diana – to an audience of 20 million people – including the revelation that: “There were three of us in this marriage.”
“Not unnaturally, he was deeply upset,” the new book says.

“By the time William emerged from Dr Gailey’s study, he was angry and incredulous,” it adds. “How, he must have asked himself, could his mother have done such a terrible thing?”

The revelations are published in the biography Prince William: Born To Be King: An Intimate Portrait


I have no idea if this is true but that can be said about everything that is written. But it seems to be in character. And she surely should have realised that the world would see the programme and her children would be hurt.

 

[Dman]

Don't know if all that is true but it was a bad time for the family. Thank God they got through it and all that drama has calmed and everyone has moved on.

 

[NGalitzine]

One would have thought having William tell both his parents to stay away from Eton and William inviting Tiggy to be his guest for family day at Eton would have been a pretty strong message that he disapproved of what was going on around him.

When Diana was dissing Charles at every opportunity I do not think she ever considered the damage she was doing to her children or to the institution that was their heritage. After becoming formally separated in 92 I never understood why she continued to attack or what she hoped to gain from it. They were never going to get back together and while she was just separated she pretty much had the best of both worlds. still royal but independent of her husband. She just came across as a vindictive wife who did not care who got hurt. Could she have honestly believed that the Panorama interview was going to help her or her children in any possible way. I don't think anyone who watched it could have been surprised that divorce was the end result.

 

[cepe]

Like a child, she lived in the moment and didn't understand the consequences of her own actions.

 

[Dman]

After Charles and Diana's interviews, I think The Queen figured that a divorce was for the best. It was a bad time for the couple and they both admitted that they wished none of it had happened. They both were saddened by all those events.

 

[Warren]

Don't know if all that is true...

I believe Penny Junor's source was the Eton House Master himself.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

On would have thought having William tell both his parents to stay away from Eton and William inviting Tiggy to be his guest for family day at Eton would have been a pretty strong message that he disapproved of what was going on around him.

When Diana was dissing Charles at every opportunity I do not think she ever considered the damage she was doing to her children or to the institution that was their heritage. After becoming formally separated in 92 I never understood why she continued to attack or what she hoped to gain from it. They were never going to get back together and while she was just separated she pretty much had the best of both worlds. still royal but independent of her husband. She just came across as a vindictive wife who did not care who got hurt. Could she have honestly believed that the Panorama interview was going o help her or her children in any possible way. I don't think anyone who watched it could have been surprised that divorce was the end result.

According to Andrew Morton, Diana was trying to build public anger against Charles so that he would be forced to renounce his right to the throne, he and Camilla would leave the country, and Diana would be left to groom William for the throne.

I'm sure she convinced herself that it would be best for William, but she failed to consider whether William and Harry wanted their father to leave the country.

I think Diana may have also been motivated by the thought that she, herself, would become very powerful when William ascended the throne. I remember one quote from an unnamed 'friend,' "when William ascends the throne, Diana will have won."

 

[Dman]

The Queen wasn't happy with both Charles and Diana's actions, especially with the Camillagate and Squidgygate tapes. The couple was doing things that were damaging to their family lives and the Monarchy.

As William and Harry have said time and time again. Their mother should be remembered for being a great mom, the love that she shared and for the great work she did for countless charities and children.

 

[cepe]

The Queen wasn't happy with both Charles and Diana's actions, especially with the Camillagate and Squidgygate tapes. The couple was doing things that were damaging to their family lives and the Monarchy.

As William and Harry have said time and time again. Their mother should be remembered for being a great mom, the love that she shared and for the great work she did for countless charities and children.

They may have been embarrassed by these but both couples were hacked and the fact nothing was done about that still makes me madder than hell. If the police had stepped in then to stop hacking, think of the suffering that would have been prevented.

 

[nascarlucy]

Princess Diana was upset with Prince Charles over a number of issues and the Panorama interview was one way that she get to him and the royal family in a way that no one else ever had before or since. She was probably the only person who would ever get away with this.

Seems like she thought about her actions after the fact or after her children were hurt by it which is then too late.

I think both of them wanted out of the marriage and perhaps Diana knew that this was one way to get out of her marriage by bad mouthing Prince Charles. Maybe that was in her plan when she did the interview, who knows.

 

[NGalitzine]

They were already separated and living apart. All she had to do was see her lawyer and have the appropriate papers filed if she just wanted a divorce. There was no need to do the Panorama interview if she just wanted a divorce.
I think she wanted to be as vindictive as possible and enjoyed playing the victim. She did not care about who would be hurt by the interview or the damage it might do to the monarchy and royal family that were her sons heritage. That interview was all about "me me me".

 

[Nico]

According to Andrew Morton, Diana was trying to build public anger against Charles so that he would be forced to renounce his right to the throne, he and Camilla would leave the country, and Diana would be left to groom William for the throne.

I'm sure she convinced herself that it would be best for William, but she failed to consider whether William and Harry wanted their father to leave the country.

I think Diana may have also been motivated by the thought that she, herself, would become very powerful when William ascended the throne. I remember one quote from an unnamed 'friend,' "when William ascends the throne, Diana will have won."

Really ? It's so much worse than i ever imagined !
It was really a mess ...