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

[Queen Camilla]

Ryan White went public with his story in 1985. Rock Hudson died in 1985.
In 1985 it was already known that AIDS could not be transmitted by casual contact. Ryan White's mother fought the school board arguing that she did not have AIDS or HIV and she had close contact with her son, including giving him hugs & kisses.

Diana held a hand of a friend in 1987 and hugged a child in 1989.

 

[Mermaid1962]

These were both well-publicized American cases, yes. However, I think that Diana's involvement with the AIDs issue did raise consciousness of seeing AIDs patients as people in need of care and human reassurance. Because Diana was The Princess of Wales, she had a high profile in society. That a princess would be involved with AIDS patients--visiting them and raising funds for research--must have meant a lot to those suffering from the disease.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Although people knew intellectually that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact, the photographs with Diana touching AIDS patients were a powerful reminder. But she was one of many celebrities calling attention to AIDS. As was previously noted, Michael Jackson visited Ryan White and there were many newspaper and magazine articles, as well as made-for-TV movies.

Many famous people were diagnosed with the illness, including Elizabeth Glazer, Arthur Ashe and Olympian Greg Louganis. The awareness would have eventually happened, Diana's involvement sped it up, particularly for people who aren't interested in current affairs but who religiously watched Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine.

Regardless of the long-term impact, Diana's work with AIDS is part of her legacy. She really did help a lot of people.

 

[soapstar]

Ryan White went public with his story in 1985. Rock Hudson died in 1985.
In 1985 it was already known that AIDS could not be transmitted by casual contact. Ryan White's mother fought the school board arguing that she did not have AIDS or HIV and she had close contact with her son, including giving him hugs & kisses.

Diana held a hand of a friend in 1987 and hugged a child in 1989.

While it was known that the disease could not be transmitted by casual contact, that did little to calm the public. Ryan White and his family fought for almost a year to get him back into school. When he was finally allowed to come back (for the 86-87 school year), the school made him use disposable utensils and separate bathrooms. Parents pulled their children out of school and his family had to deal with death threats and constant harassment.

That's why Diana's visit to the AIDS ward got worldwide attention. Not only because it was the first ward to be opened in London, but also because she was one of the first high profile celebrities to be photgraphed touching a person with HIV/AIDS. I remember reading how one of the patients said that her visit meant so much to him, because she treated him like a person and didn't wear gloves when shaking his hand.

So while people can argue how big/small her role was in the fight for the disease, it can't be said that she didn't have an impact.

 

[Osipi]

One thing I've noticed is that it hasn't been established just how far in the future Diana's legacy would be looked at historically.

Take for instance Diana and her involvement with AIDS. Right now its being debated how much of an influence she did have on people's understanding of the disease and how she perhaps assisted in spreading the concept that AIDS itself was not transmitted by human contact. It is very possible that 200-300 years from now, AIDS/HIV itself will have been eradicated and other than for medical research such as one would look back at Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, Diana and her work against AIDS may be a trivial blip.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Ryan White was being hugged by strangers and famous people before Diana touched the hand of her friend.

Sorry but Diana did not reach a global audience with her touching the hand of a friend with HIV/AIDS. Rock Hudson story reached far more.

fyi, Diana never made news in Chicago for any of her visits including when she visited Chicago. (Never knew she visited but another forum claims she visited.)

Diana was on the cover of the tabloids and magazines but never did they write about her 'charity' work.

If Diana was known for her AIDS visit there would be magazine covers proclaiming this but AFAIK there isn't any.

 

[Lady Nimue]

This has been a very interesting discussion because I've been approaching the whole "will Diana be a footnote or not" discussion as an American. It's natural for me to consider members of the modern British royal family as "footnotes," but UK nationals and members of the commonwealth have a different view. I'm learning a lot.

Good point! I agree. One's view would be influenced by one's own nationality. Makes sense.

 

[Zonk]

Really, Diana never made the news in Chicago?

I seem to recall a crowd of people standing outside of Chicago building (not sure what building) waiting to see Diana when she visited in the late 1990's. She might not have been mentioned in the Chicago Tribune but she certainly made the Washington Post. Maybe even the front page if I recall.

Here is a pic of her visiting Cook County Hospital.

Diana Princess Of Wales In Chicago USA Visiting Cook County Hospital... News Photo 52101685 | Getty Images

She even stayed at the Drake Hotel.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thedrakehotelchicago/4615683122/

Yes I can see why this trip wouldn't have made the news.

I get that Diana is still controversial...and that people will never like her for a variety of legitimate reasons just as people will always love her despite those reasons and make excuses for some of her actions. But let's try to keep everything in perspective and stop making sweeping generalizations (never made the news, didn't change at least one person's perception on something).

I think its possible to dislike someone and acknowledge that person may have some positive attributes. Just as its possible to like someone and acknowledge that person may have some negative attributes.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The point being is her charity work is being overblown.

If she was known for her charity work the tabloids and magazines during her lifetime would have covered her 'charity work'.

There are no magazine covers heralding her AIDS work.

 

[Dman]

Yes, Diana's visit to Chicago was pretty big and I remember there were lines of people and media outside the Drake hotel when she arrived. Her speech at Northwestern University on cancer research was well covered and she comforted the patients at Cook County Hospital. People went nuts over her at the cancer research dinner/gala at the Field Museum. Her whole visit to Chicago was covered Live on Chicago tv channels.

Her impact was huge and I personally don't let all the books, articles and movies tarnish her impact and her memory.

 

[casualfan]

The point being is her charity work is being overblown.

If she was known for her charity work the tabloids and magazines during her lifetime would have covered her 'charity work'.

There are no magazine covers heralding her AIDS work.

Um they did. There was tons of coverage of her work with AIDS, land mines, etc etc.

I get it that people aren't big fans of Diana, and I'm sure that her contributions didn't always 'change the world,' but why denigrate the fact that she DID help bring a lot of issues to the fore?

 

[VictoriaB]

The point being is her charity work is being overblown.

If she was known for her charity work the tabloids and magazines during her lifetime would have covered her 'charity work'.

There are no magazine covers heralding her AIDS work.

Maybe not in the US but the world doesn't stop at the East River and the Hollywood sign.

In the UK there was a lot of coverage of her charity work. You can argue she didn't impact Americans' perceptions of homelessness, AIDS and landlines, I don't know as I didn't live there but she did in the UK.

I didn't like her and still don't and I think her charitable work was over emphasized when compared to what the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne achieved but to deny her having had any impact in the UK is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Queen Camilla]

Yes, Diana's visit to Chicago was pretty big and I remember there were lines of people and media outside the Drake hotel when she arrived. Her speech at Northwestern University on cancer research was well covered and she comforted the patients at Cook County Hospital. People went nuts over her at the cancer research dinner/gala at the Field Museum. Her whole visit to Chicago was covered Live on Chicago tv channels..

Never saw or heard of any of this...

Exactly what was Diana's expertise on cancer research?
What was her speech?

 

[Dman]

Never saw or heard of any of this...

Exactly what was Diana's expertise on cancer research?
What was her speech?

Here's a part of her speech-
Princess Diana Helps Raise Over $1 Million for Cancer Research | Cancer Network

Video Clips:
UK - Diana's Appeal For Cancer Organisations | AP Archive

I've been trying to find a full copy of her speech.

 

[Zonk]

Diana's particular expertise was in the field of fundraising.

From People Magazine:

Diana helped raise, to the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago, where about $350,000 in proceeds from her 1996 fund-raising trip will fund cutting-edge research, to an alternative London AIDS clinic, where patients receive massage and aromatherapy thanks to the $40,000 she brought in. As for a 1996 U.S. breast cancer benefit for which Diana helped raise $1.4 million, "she raised the visibility twice as much as it had been," says Katharine Graham, chairman of the executive committee of the Washington Post Company. "People were more willing to give—and to give more."

"Diana used her power just like a magic wand, waving it in all kinds of places where there was hurt," says Debbie Tate, cofounder of Grandma's House, a group of Washington homes for abused, abandoned and HIV-positive children, which was $100,000 richer after Diana hosted a 1990 fundraiser.

Um they did. There was tons of coverage of her work with AIDS, land mines, etc etc.

I get it that people aren't big fans of Diana, and I'm sure that her contributions didn't always 'change the world,' but why denigrate the fact that she DID help bring a lot of issues to the fore?

Why indeed?

 

[soapstar]

Ryan White was being hugged by strangers and famous people before Diana touched the hand of her friend.

Sorry but Diana did not reach a global audience with her touching the hand of a friend with HIV/AIDS. Rock Hudson story reached far more.

fyi, Diana never made news in Chicago for any of her visits including when she visited Chicago. (Never knew she visited but another forum claims she visited.)

Diana was on the cover of the tabloids and magazines but never did they write about her 'charity' work.

If Diana was known for her AIDS visit there would be magazine covers proclaiming this but AFAIK there isn't any.

Diana holding the hand of her friend with HIV happened in 1997, years after her visit to Middlesex Hospital's (first) AIDS ward. The visit to the ward happened in 1987 and it most definitely reached a global audience.

Here are two articles discussing the impact her visits had.
How Di brought hope to gays - News - The Independent

BlogPost - World AIDS Day: timeline of a worldwide pandemic (scroll down to see the photo)

As for Chicago, Diana did make the news there. Here's a CNN article about her visit to Chicago. It even says that the local tv stations broadcast the visit live.

CNN - Princess Di casts royal spell over Chicago - June 6, 1996

She even got press when she wasn't visiting Chicago. Here's an article in the Chicago Tribune about a visit she made to New York

On Her 1st Visit, Princess Diana Savors A Well-polished Big Apple - Chicago Tribune

There are tons more articles, but I'm way too lazy to post them

ETA: Here's video from one of Chicago's local stations.

Princess Diana In Chicago June 6, 1996

 

[sthreats]

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

Ryan White went public with his story in 1985. Rock Hudson died in 1985.
In 1985 it was already known that AIDS could not be transmitted by casual contact. Ryan White's mother fought the school board arguing that she did not have AIDS or HIV and she had close contact with her son, including giving him hugs & kisses.

Diana held a hand of a friend in 1987 and hugged a child in 1989.

What is scientifically known doesn't translate to how the general public perceives things.
Rock Hudson made a difference but the general public still perceived this as a gay disease. Not that many people knew about Ryan White. But that was the beginning of people seeing that this was a disease that didn't Just affect one particular group. Princess Diana did make a difference . I think anyone who worked to raise AIDs awareness or raised money made a difference. I was in medical school in the 1980's. It is a horrible time - taking care of 20 year olds with HIV. We had little to offer them only Palliatve care.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The world is not the U.S. or U.K. It is the world.

Diana did not have a global impact. Diana's charity work was not covered world wide. Her visit to an AIDS clinic in 1987 did not have a global audience.

Diana may have contributed to raising funds but that is not the same as having an impact.

As far as the coverage in Chicago, apparently she was here for 3 days, yet even though I regularly watch the news, I heard nothing about it.

I think this more accurately portrays her visit to Chicago.

Media have made Diana what she is: Princess of Hype
But the alleged Diana giddiness still boils down to maybe a dozen or so Chicagoans.

Media Have Made Diana What She Is: Princess Of Hype - Chicago Tribune

 

[Osipi]

Lets look at this from another perspective. Instead of AIDS, lets look at Polio. It wasn't until 1955 that Jonas Salk presented his first polio vaccine. Today, its among the WHOs most necessary vaccines. Although there have been outbreaks of polio as recently as 2013 in Syria, there really isn't much in the news about this disease. I'm sure in the past there have been spokespeople and fundraisers that spoke out on polio but I'd be hard pressed to be able to tell you who they are. What is amazing too is the list of well known personalities that contracted polio and survived and aren't generally known to the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the one most commonly known but people like Alan Alda, Johnny Weismuller, Donald Sutherland, Judy Collins aren't well known. What history teaches us is that Jonas Salk invented the vaccine.

It will be the same with AIDS. Diana did stand up and speak up for AIDS and many of us here do remember it but AIDS also will follow the route of polio when it comes to history with hopefully a name added that has come up with a cure/vaccine against AIDS/HIV.

Diana, I don't think, will be singled out for her charity work as all of the British Royal Family does this. Its what was expected of them in that time frame and continues on in our present. What Diana did will have no more impact on history than what anyone else in the family has done. Perhaps if Diana had set up a Princess of Wales Research Center where the cure/vaccine would possibly be found, it would have more of an impact and she would have been remembered for that contribution but this didn't happen. Spokespeople and fundraisers call attention to causes and its the cause that is remembered, not the person when it comes to the annals of history.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

...and the spin goes on.

 

[soapstar]

The world is not the U.S. or U.K. It is the world.

Diana did not have a global impact. Diana's charity work was not covered world wide. Her visit to an AIDS clinic in 1987 did not have a global audience.

Diana may have contributed to raising funds but that is not the same as having an impact.

As far as the coverage in Chicago, apparently she was here for 3 days, yet even though I regularly watch the news, I heard nothing about it.

I think this more accurately portrays her visit to Chicago.

Media have made Diana what she is: Princess of Hype
But the alleged Diana giddiness still boils down to maybe a dozen or so Chicagoans.

Media Have Made Diana What She Is: Princess Of Hype - Chicago Tribune

Whether Diana was loved by all in Chicago was not the point you were arguing. You stated that Diana's visit to Chicago didn't make the news. In fact, you said that "Diana never made news in Chicago". I and many others, have given you proof that she did make the news in Chicago. What's funny, is that even your own article states that Diana's visit was covered live by local Chicago stations. Why you've switched to talking about how hyped Diana was, I don't know. No one here was even discussing that.

I honestly have no idea if Diana's overall charity work with AIDS/HIV had a global impact and I wasn't debating that. I'm strictly talking about her visit to Middlesex Hospital and the global attention that visit received. But I have a feeling that we're going to go around and around on this, so it's probably best that we agree to disagree.

ETA: I just realized the article that you posted is satire...the quotes aren't actually from real people.

 

[Dman]

I wish there was a foundation setup in her name and that William & Harry and even Catherine were involved so her causes would get more press attention and people would benefit from the foundation, not only in the UK, but also in the US.

 

[Osipi]

I wish there was a foundation setup in her name and that William & Harry and even Catherine were involved so her causes would get more press attention and people would benefit from the foundation, not only in the UK, but also in the US.

Although Diana isn't mentioned so much these days, William's work with Centrepoint is a continuation of Diana's and Sentebale (Forget Me Not) was established by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho in memory of their mothers. Harry was also named Patron of the Halo 25th Anniversary Appeal last year and has done quite a bit in regards to continuing to bring land mines to the forefront as his mother did.

I don't think that it is necessary that Diana's name be highlighted in any of the continuing efforts with the charities that she was involved in but the seeds that she planted will continue to grow and bear fruit through the efforts of her family.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Lets look at this from another perspective. Instead of AIDS, lets look at Polio. It wasn't until 1955 that Jonas Salk presented his first polio vaccine. Today, its among the WHOs most necessary vaccines. Although there have been outbreaks of polio as recently as 2013 in Syria, there really isn't much in the news about this disease. I'm sure in the past there have been spokespeople and fundraisers that spoke out on polio but I'd be hard pressed to be able to tell you who they are. What is amazing too is the list of well known personalities that contracted polio and survived and aren't generally known to the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the one most commonly known but people like Alan Alda, Johnny Weismuller, Donald Sutherland, Judy Collins aren't well known. What history teaches us is that Jonas Salk invented the vaccine.

It will be the same with AIDS. Diana did stand up and speak up for AIDS and many of us here do remember it but AIDS also will follow the route of polio when it comes to history with hopefully a name added that has come up with a cure/vaccine against AIDS/HIV.

Diana, I don't think, will be singled out for her charity work as all of the British Royal Family does this. Its what was expected of them in that time frame and continues on in our present. What Diana did will have no more impact on history than what anyone else in the family has done. Perhaps if Diana had set up a Princess of Wales Research Center where the cure/vaccine would possibly be found, it would have more of an impact and she would have been remembered for that contribution but this didn't happen. Spokespeople and fundraisers call attention to causes and its the cause that is remembered, not the person when it comes to the annals of history.

Very insightful, as always, Osipi. There is a difference between leaving a legacy and being an important figure in history. Everyone on this board will leave a legacy. We've all affected our family and friends in many ways and the changes we made may be small, but have changed the course of history in some way. We will never know how our great-great-grandparents' decisions impact us today, but they do.

That is different than who will be remembered by the general public or studied by historians. Diana was one of many celebrities who raised money for AIDS research. Perhaps the money she raised will not directly lead to a cure, but it will help--if nothing else, failed research helps successful researchers know what didn't work. In some cases, failed research into one disease may lead to breakthroughs for other illnesses.

I agree with Queen Camilla that some people exaggerate both the amount of charity work she did and its impact--I believe Prince Charles's work has had more impact on day-to-day life--but Diana did bring publicity and funds to many charitable causes. She also helped people feel better psychologically, which is important but hard to measure.

It's all part of her legacy. Whether she will be a known historical figure in 200 years is an open question.

 

[Mermaid1962]

One thing that I don't understand is why, if she didn't want official protection, she didn't at least hire professional, well-qualified security for when she was "out and about." She could certainly afford it. She was so worried about her safety, yet she'd go around London and other places unprotected, where anyone could have taken a shot at her. Where there's a camera, there can be a gun. Where there's a long-distance lens, there can be a sniper.

 

[Curryong]

I thought Diana was more worried about a car accident happening to her than snipers. She wrote that a certain person (never publicly named) was planning an accident involving brake failure for her in a handwritten letter only ten months before she died. She supposedly gave this letter to Paul Burrell as 'insurance'.

 

[anbrida]

One thing that I don't understand is why, if she didn't want official protection, she didn't at least hire professional, well-qualified security for when she was "out and about." She could certainly afford it. She was so worried about her safety, yet she'd go around London and other places unprotected, where anyone could have taken a shot at her. Where there's a camera, there can be a gun. Where there's a long-distance lens, there can be a sniper.

Because she knew her enemy was very powerful. If they decide to kill her, some professional security wouldn't help at all. The result won't be different, merely adding more names to the casualty list. Hiding in her house forever is not practical. So I tend to believe she did make some secret tapes as a blackmail in exchange of her safety. However, the most efficient way to guarantee her safety is to drop her landmine campaign.

 

[PetticoatLane]

I thought Diana was more worried about a car accident happening to her than snipers. She wrote that a certain person (never publicly named) was planning an accident involving brake failure for her in a handwritten letter only ten months before she died. She supposedly gave this letter to Paul Burrell as 'insurance'.

If she was so worried about a car accident then surely the very least she should have done was wear a seatbelt when she was in one! The fact she didn't proves she wasn't all that worried at all.

To be blunt, Diana just wasn't important enough for anyone to bother assassinating her. MI5/MI6 had much, much bigger worries on their plates at that time than a former royal whom only the tabloids and gossip rags were all the interested in.

 

[Curryong]

I'm sure that's true, and as I said earlier I am not a conspiracy theorist. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Diana FELT that she was in danger. It was her perception, her view, that someone or some organisation was trying to eliminate her.

 

[anbrida]

To be blunt, Diana just wasn't important enough for anyone to bother assassinating her. MI5/MI6 had much, much bigger worries on their plates at that time than a former royal whom only the tabloids and gossip rags were all the interested in.

I think this saying is too extreme. When she was alive, she definitely was an important voice in the humanitarian work, as what the the following article said

A journalist colleague worked for years to write articles about the campaign against anti-personnel landmines. I, too, reported on the issue, writing stories about African amputees caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines that remained hidden and deadly across wide swathes of territory, long after the conflicts ended. Our articles never got the kind of placement in the media that we felt they deserved.

Then Princess Diana went to Angola in January 1997. Iconic images of her walking through landmine areas and sitting with young amputees were on the front pages of every newspaper in the world and were beamed by every television network. She made an impassioned statement against anti-personnel landmines and urged all responsible governments to stop using them, producing them and selling them.

Single-handedly Diana made the anti-landmine campaign a hot topic.

Is Africa Hollywood's playground? | Opinion: Landmines weren't an issue until Princess Diana walked in a minefield. | World | Boise Weekly