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

[Dman]

The late Princess of Wales memory will live on. Her life had it's ups and downs, but she did some amazing things while she was here, and touched peoples lives all over the world. Despite the passing of the time, historically she'll never be forgotten.

 

[Lady Nimue]

But she did interesting kind things, she could have avoided. She touched AIDS patients and treated like human beings. She didn't walk around with gloves on. And not touching. She may have done charity work, because, truthfully, there was nothing else open to her, but she seemed to care about what she was doing. Charles on his interview just made a fuss that Camilla does work for Osteoporosis.

While what you say is interesting, how does it make her a 'true heart'? I'm puzzled by the terminology being used by anbrida. Diana had good instincts, that's clear. She was a 'natural' dealing with strangers. It's a good skill to have. But why does this make her unusual or of special note? Countless people have these skills.

I can recall being profoundly moved by the work of Audrey Hepburn. Audrey Hepburn impressed my impressionable girl's heart and I genuinely grieved her death. She was a class act imo. Diana? No, though after much reading I do understand that Diana suffered and I am very sorry for her. She has my compassion. There is something very sad about her.

Remember, that these people don't work, what they call work is charity time and appearances.

I am well aware of what goes on with charity work. Which is why the focus placed on charity work for some royals I find curious. I leave it to good PR. It's clearly a win-win for (certain) royals. More power to them.

 

[anbrida]

Dear anbrida...I'm curious: why do you seem to elevate Diana to a level of 'goodness' as a 'true heart' over any other royal? We have pretty grim evidence that Diana was a very difficult woman to deal with, more so than any other royal princess. How does that translate into goodness and a pure heart?

You see, I am very interested in her. Fairly speaking, I did read more about her, and therefore know more about her than you. Especially I know quite well about the things she did, and why she did those things in her last period of life. That makes me believe, more than a lot of people, she was willing to give much much more of herself to help the poor people, especially to the weakest people who don't have voice in this society. However, since the topic is very sensitive, if I keep talking about this, I will be banned from this forum. So I have to be obedient.

But I am not the only one who deeply respect her. Some great people who had knew her share the same idea with me. Here is an comment on her from the late Nelson Mandela. And he was also the only VIP who'd ever visited her grave.

Princess Diana was a human being, with all the faults of most of us, but also with a bigger heart than most of us. As I discovered on that last mission for humanity, there was an underlying humility which, at least to me, redeem all" -- Nelson Mandela.

The reason Mandela could discover her last mission for humanity, is because it was his ambassador Jakob Selebi who carried her torch to speak for the mine victims in the Landmine conference in Oslo which commenced several days after her death.

So Mandela thought she had a bigger heart than most people, I think he must has his own reason, just like me. But the public might not know the reason.

 

[Lady Nimue]

You see, I am very interested in her. Fairly speaking, I did read more about her, and therefore know more about her than you.

Dueling knowledge? We cannot know what the other knows, let's be fair.

Especially I know quite well about the things she did, and why she did those things in her last period of life. That makes me believe, more than a lot of people, she was willing to give much much more of herself to help the poor people, especially to the weakest people who don't have voice in this society.

It is a good way for her to be remembered, I think. We should all have such.

However, since the topic is very sensitive, if I keep talking about this, I will be banned from this forum. So I have to be obedient.

This I don't understand. Why would one be banned? Anyway, I don't have much more to say. I just thought you could explain more why you feel the way you do. It's always puzzled me, the adulation Diana engendered.

But I am not the only one who deeply respect her. Some great people who had knew her share the same idea with me. Here is an comment on her from the late Nelson Mandela. And he was also the only VIP who'd ever visited her grave.

The reason Mandela could discover her last mission for humanity, is because it was his ambassador Jakob Selebi who carried her torch to speak for the mine victims in the Landmine conference in Oslo which commenced several days after her death.

So Mandela thought she had a bigger heart than most people, I think he must has his own reason, just like me. But the public might not know the reason.

Mandela was a wise man. He did not speak ill of anyone. Rightly so. But he didn't know her, not really. That's only fair to say, too. BTW I respect her, too. Why wouldn't one?

Charles wept when she died. For me, that says everything. That tells me all I need to know about Diana. As Mandela said, a flawed human being, but with a large heart. Shouldn't that be enough? I see Diana as a tragic figure, and somehow the adulation makes her more tragic imo. Anyway, she's at rest now and all that tussle is over for her. May she rest in peace.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Her popularity comes from her true heart. [...]

How do you know? And have -let us say- the Countess of Wessex or the Duke of Edinburgh no "true heart"?

Reading your posts, you seem to see Diana like she has been dipped in the sweet sugarcake fondant from the Barbara Cartland-novels. I have the idea that was the very last she herself would have wanted: she was a human being, made of flesh and blood, with her greats and with her lows.

 

[anbrida]

How do you know? And have -let us say- the Countess of Wessex or the Duke of Edinburgh no "true heart"?

Reading your posts, you seem to see Diana like she has been dipped in the sweet sugarcake fondant from the Barbara Cartland-novels. I have the idea that was the very last she herself would have wanted: she was a human being, made of flesh and blood, with her greats and with her lows.

I should apologize for my ambitiousness here. I means she was popular because she had a bigger heart than most people. That was exactly the term Mandela used, not "large heart". I know some people would be offended at hearing she had a bigger heart than them or other Royal people. So the fact that Mandela would particularly use "bigger heart" to describe her, that means it was not only out of polite, it means something. And I agree with him at this point.

Not many people will sacrificed their own reputation in order to help the poor. People always said had she not died, her popularity will fade quickly. This is the evidence of how much reputation she had sacrificed. Mandela said she had underlying humility, and her son Harry said (at her 10 year anniversary) she put every other people first and herself very very last. These are very specific comments regarding to a very specific event of her. They are not general complements.

Definition of humility: the quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance.

Another thing which really touches me, is her attitude towards death. Here is a story. On July 31st 1997, right before she setting off for the first vacation with Dodi, she had a talk with her long-time friend and personal astrologer Debbie Frank at a lunch at KP.

"It was all exquisite. But Diana barely touched a thing. She wanted to talk about her life. I don't know whether she perhaps had a premonition of her own death, but she seemed to feel it was important that I knew her life story. She was remarkably sanguine that day as she gave me a "resume" of her life. The odd thing at our lunch on July 31st was that, although she wasn't blase, she had no fear of death. She even told me, `I can do more from up there than down here'. Diana believed in the afterlife and so do I. Love survives" -- Debbie Frank

She was very morbid here. It doesn't matter what is the exact reason why she was so morbid. But I know she had her reason. What really matter is the attitude -- she didn't fear death because she thought she can do more up there! I have to admit I was really touched.

Of course, she was a human being, and she had a lot of faults. She was not easy to deal with, easy to be at odds with other people, a bit vengeful, too stubborn, blah, blah. But I am not interested in her private life. With respect to charity work, she was absolutely genuine and devoted. She genuinely care about the suffering people and wanted to do her best to help them.

 

[royal rob]

Thank you anbrida for bringing something new to the discussion you have posted some lovely and thoughtful pieces ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lee-Z]

Of course, she was a human being, and she had a lot of faults. She was not easy to deal with, easy to be at odds with other people, a bit vengeful, too stubborn, blah, blah. But I am not interested in her private life. With respect to charity work, she was absolutely genuine and devoted. She genuinely care about the suffering people and wanted to do her best to help them.

This is probably the key to this conversation, you focus on a specific part of her life and are not interested in other parts.
Others (me for one) can't view one part of a person's life without taking the rest into consideration.

But on this part I agree with you, Diana was wonderful with people less fortunate then her, very dedicated and genuinly trying to make things better and she showed a bigger heart to them than a lot of other people would do.

 

[Curryong]

Yes indeed. Diana was a flawed diamond, but a diamond just the same.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I'm just going to say that I love Lady Nimue and Royal Robs kind and gentle posts responding to Anbrida.

Anbrida, your comments are welcome I am sure.

I don't know very much about Diana. Kind of finding things out after that "re-enventing the royals" documentary. I think there is no denying she had a most positive impact on attitudes towards AIDS victims and land mines at least, and that is no mean feat.

with the little I know about her, I too see her as a tragic figure.

 

[anbrida]

This is probably the key to this conversation, you focus on a specific part of her life and are not interested in other parts.
Others (me for one) can't view one part of a person's life without taking the rest into consideration.

But on this part I agree with you, Diana was wonderful with people less fortunate then her, very dedicated and genuinly trying to make things better and she showed a bigger heart to them than a lot of other people would do.

One reason I am not interested in her private life is because I know it is impossible to know someone else's PRIVATE life, because it is PRIVATE. I dont want to waste my time on gossips and rumors. Any opinion on someone else' private life will always be just opinion, never be fact.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I should apologize for my ambitiousness here. I means she was popular because she had a bigger heart than most people. That was exactly the term Mandela used, not "large heart". I know some people would be offended at hearing she had a bigger heart than them or other Royal people. So the fact that Mandela would particularly use "bigger heart" to describe her, that means it was not only out of polite, it means something. And I agree with him at this point.

This is where we disagree: I don't believe that Diana had a bigger heart than most people. She cared about people who were less fortunate, but I don't see any evidence that she had more compassion than most people.

While working on the anti-landmine campaign, I met doctors and nurses willing to travel to poor countries and live under very primitive conditions to help other people. I met the people--who were volunteers--who literally put life and limb on the line to clear landmines. These people did not receive any publicity. I don't believe that Diana, who spent most of her time in Kensington Palace, with security, servants, expensive clothes and jewelry, had a bigger heart than they did.

I also don't believe that Diana had a bigger heart than ordinary people who volunteer at homeless shelters, hospitals, and schools everyday. There are also clergy, doctors, nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, and others who have dedicated their lives to actually helping other people. Diana didn't dedicate her life to helping others.

I think the incident that best demonstrates her true interest in charity work was when she resigned as patron from many of her charities because she lost her HRH title in the divorce. It really didn't matter much because she had stopped making regular appearances for charities several years earlier. Even at the height of her charity work, Diana did what most of us consider a part-time job.

In one of your posts, you outlined the difficulty in getting people to raise money for charity. Diana didn't leave one red cent to charity in her will.

Not many people will sacrificed their own reputation in order to help the poor. People always said had she not died, her popularity will fade quickly. This is the evidence of how much reputation she had sacrificed. Mandela said she had underlying humility, and her son Harry said (at her 10 year anniversary) she put every other people first and herself very very last. These are very specific comments regarding to a very specific event of her. They are not general complements.

Definition of humility: the quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance.

Diana didn't sacrifice her reputation to help others and I see little indication that she was truly humble.

I agree that, like all other royals, Diana used her ability to get publicity to help others. The fact that she got more publicity doesn't mean she is a better person than the other royals, it just means she was better at getting publicity.

Her charity work is part of her legacy and part of what makes her interesting as a human being. But it was only part of her life. The last year, she spent a few weeks on the landmine campaign and she occasionally visited people in hospitals or homeless shelters. She certainly didn't do so every day. The rest of her time was spent with Harry and William, going shopping and going on expensive vacations.

 

[Lee-Z]

One reason I am not interested in her private life is because I know it is impossible to know someone else's PRIVATE life, because it is PRIVATE. I dont want to waste my time on gossips and rumors. Any opinion on someone else' private life will always be just opinion, never be fact.

There are more parts to Diana's life than that, even without the private stuff, there is a lot more to her professional life than just her work with the less fortunate...

 

[Dman]

Yes, Diana had a big heart, but she wasn't better than anyone else. Diana started caring for the elderly and young years before she became Princess of Wales. As a child, she loved spending time with those in nursing homes, and later she took up a job as a nanny, school dance instructor for kids, and then pre-school assistant. She always cared for other people.

Diana, only resigned from many of her charities because she wanted to focus on a select few that she could really make a difference with. It's nearly impossible to be closely involved with hundreds of charities.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I should apologize for my ambitiousness here. I means she was popular because she had a bigger heart than most people.

I think she was popular because she was pretty and dressed well, and because she was Charles' wife. She was a princess who was the wife of the heir to the throne destined to be the future Queen. I think all of that made for a powerful halo effect. I think people projected their fancies onto her, making her into what they wanted/hoped she was.

That was exactly the term Mandela used, not "large heart". I know some people would be offended at hearing she had a bigger heart than them or other Royal people. So the fact that Mandela would particularly use "bigger heart" to describe her, that means it was not only out of polite, it means something. And I agree with him at this point.

Same meaning imo. Plus Mandela was making public statements about a deceased public figure. No one savages anyone in such circumstances. However, he could have chosen to say nothing or something less effusive, that is true, so his saying what he did has significance. I do believe that Diana had that charisma many speak of. She was effective in that way.

Not many people will sacrificed their own reputation in order to help the poor. People always said had she not died, her popularity will fade quickly. This is the evidence of how much reputation she had sacrificed.

Not to belabor the point already made by others but Diana sacrificed very little to work with 'the poor'. US Royal Watcher's post pretty much says it all.

This does not negate what Diana did do. In saying what I have I do not take away anything from the work she did accomplish. She clearly had a natural interest and bent towards charity work, giving of her time in a natural and engaging way. Had she married more modestly, perhaps a Viscount, one could easily see her enjoying the social, charity round, showing up for teas, charity balls and museum openings. She was a natural and what a loss not to have her around for all that.

Do some reading on the aspect of her charity work. Diana was well compensated for her appearances, if only being put up at great expense at premier lodgings by the charities she was serving (abroad) - but I don't want to go too deeply into this aspect of the charity work because I am an emphatic believer in compensating 'the talent' when they come out to front for a cause. One appearance by a high-end name can oft times garner enough donations to make such expenses well worth any inconvenience (to the charity) such appearances cause.

Mandela said she had underlying humility, and her son Harry said (at her 10 year anniversary) she put every other people first and herself very very last. These are very specific comments regarding to a very specific event of her. They are not general complements.

No one is going to speak ill of her in public (it's a given), and I think anyone watching her with her sons can agree she was a devoted mother in many ways. But any understanding of Diana's personal demons makes it clear that it was not a healthy humility that drove her, but a crushing lack of self-esteem. At least imo. Plus she made decisions that created havoc in the lives of her sons, causing them enormous pain growing up. As I've said, I see her as a suffering person who could not always keep her needs second to others. It's tragic.

Definition of humility: the quality of having a modest or low view of one's importance.

Humility is not low self-esteem, which is what I think Diana suffered from. However, given the man Mandela was, I trust his view as well. I trust that Diana was all of what he said. Human beings are nothing if but contradictory. Both realities can stand side-by-side and be true. Humble and loving, self defeated and suffering, both can be true, and often are present in people of public note, surprisingly enough.

Another thing which really touches me, is her attitude towards death. Here is a story. On July 31st 1997, right before she setting off for the first vacation with Dodi, she had a talk with her long-time friend and personal astrologer Debbie Frank at a lunch at KP.

Somehow I'd take that all with a grain of salt.

She was very morbid here. It doesn't matter what is the exact reason why she was so morbid. But I know she had her reason. What really matter is the attitude -- she didn't fear death because she thought she can do more up there! I have to admit I was really touched.

Do you subscribe to the conspiracy theories surrounding her death?

Of course, she was a human being, and she had a lot of faults. She was not easy to deal with, easy to be at odds with other people, a bit vengeful, too stubborn, blah, blah. But I am not interested in her private life.

Okay. Fair enough.

With respect to charity work, she was absolutely genuine and devoted. She genuinely care about the suffering people and wanted to do her best to help them.

I believe that was so, too. She had a good heart for children and those who suffered. "He looks for scars who has endured a wound."

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Diana, Princess of Wales was a lady with a good heart, like millions of Britons have a good heart and care for their loved ones, their next of kin and their community. In essence there is no difference in that.

At the other side of the channel the then Princess Máxima -like any other mum- volunteered as surveillant mom on the school's playground, as "reading mom" and even as "lice mom" (controllig the schoolkids on lice). When Diana would have done this, wow man... she was immediately declared Sancta Diana Perfectissimae, almost pushing aside The Virgin herself from her revered place... In the Netherlands, people hear about it, and like Máxima for her hands-on approach. And that is it.

It is just the utter adoration, the elevation, the reverence, almost making a countryside girl from Northamptonshire looking like an alien superhuman... As if the people have witnessed something from outer space between 1981 and 1997. I am sure this was the last thing Diana wanted. For the rest: yes, she was a great Princess and she is remembered as a great lady.

 

[Jacknch]

Things were very different back in the days when Diana was alive, including the public perception and expectations of royals. One cannot compare how people/media etc perceive what Diana did back then to what royals (Maxima to take your example) do now.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I agree. The BRF were always involved with charity work, but Diana did have a different approach than other senior members of the family. I remember seeing live footage during her first visit to Nova Scotia; I was surprised by how she'd almost wander into the crowd during her walkabouts. That was unusual, because usually they stayed very much on the other side of the barrier. Plus she had a much more hands-on approach to children than was normally seen. Today we take those kinds of interactions for granted with people such as Sophie Wessex, but we hadn't seen it before Diana. It's quite hard to put into words her combination of compassion and charisma for those who weren't there. That's why everything was such a shock when Her True Story came out. We just weren't used to thinking of Diana as a fragile, sad woman.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, Diana had a big heart, but she wasn't better than anyone else. Diana started caring for the elderly and young years before she became Princess of Wales. As a child, she loved spending time with those in nursing homes, and later she took up a job as a nanny, school dance instructor for kids, and then pre-school assistant. She always cared for other people.

Diana, only resigned from many of her charities because she wanted to focus on a select few that she could really make a difference with. It's nearly impossible to be closely involved with hundreds of charities.

Not quite - she was going to resign for ALL of her charities but was told that she wouldn't be able to continue to live at KP rent free if she wasn't doing some work and so she decided to keep a few.

She actually announced that she was resigning from all but backtracked a few days later when she realised that she would lose her home if she did that.

She had to keep working in the charity field to pay the rent.

 

[Curryong]

I was talking about that only the other day with a friend. It's often been stated that Diana was told that it was 'work at your charities or get out of KP', but what was the source of that story? I've never been able to find it and I've tried over the years.

On the face of it, that ultimatum would have been regarded as a slap in the face to a much loved Princess of Wales after a nasty divorce, had the British public known about it at that time. I was in England in 1996/97 and can't remember that being discussed at all, even in the anger following Diana's death.

 

[anbrida]

Well if I just claimed "she sacrificed her reputation to help the poor" without explaining why, that will cause a lot of misunderstanding. So I will risk my ID's life to explain a little more here.

For both vacations with Doid in August, Diana had tipped off a paparazzi Jason Fraser to take intimate photo of her and Dodi on the boat, including the "kiss photo". Basically, it can be said the craziness of media fanzy on her and Dodi was orchestrated by her. Here is the article

Photographer Jason Fraser opens up on his special relationship with Princess Diana | Daily Mail Online

However, this didn't do any good to herself. Especially, Aug 14, Dodi's engaged girlfriend Kelly Fisher launched a very public lawsuit against Dodi, and sold her story to a tabloid for $200,000. And the tabloid newspaper published an interview with her and went on to serialize Fisher's story with a name "Kelly, Her Own True Story", just like "Diana, Her Own True Story" . On the night of Aug 20, when Diana came back from the holiday with Rosa, she talked to her friend Michael Barrymore for two and a half hours. She told him the affair with Dodi was serious, but did NOT say she was in love.

"She was `nervous and jittery', wanting to discuss the whole Dodi situation...There had been days of revelations since then. Diana had to give Kelly's claims serious thought. This was not like her previous romances, conducted in secret, with no one to think of but herself. This was a very public affair which could have repercussions, both for herself as a Royal figure and for her sons, one of whom would succeed to the throne" -- Michael Barrymore

It is silly to think Diana didn't know the consequence of being seen with Dodi again at this moment. With any common sense, Diana should stop this relationship with Dodi, or at least wait until things cool down and stop being seen with Dodi for a while. Otherwise it would not only damage her reputation but also embarrass her sons. Nevertheless, while there wasn't any reason to be hurry in this new relationship, at this tornado moment, she decided to go for another vacation with Dodi. In the morning of Aug 21st, she did the Le Monde interview, and said the famous phrase "Nothing bring me more happiness than trying to help the most vulnerable people in the society." Then at the same night, she set off for the vacation. And again she tipped off Jason Fraser to take their intimate photos, and kept him up to date about where she and Dodi could be seen.

The situation is like, someone came out claim to the world that Diana was playing a third-person role in their relationship. As a response, not only Diana didn't stop the relationship, to the contrary of anyone would expect, immediately she invited the whole world herself to see how she played this third-person role. This is like committing a reputation suicide, without even a proper reason. As such a smart PR people like her, that is really out of character.

Basically, through the whole Aug of 1997, her state of mind was to "attract as much attention as she can AT ANY COST". The question is WHY? Then we need to look at another thing she was planning at the same time. If you look at the posts started here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/dianas-charity-work-and-patronages-11254-5.html#post1758520, you will know that she had set a goal for herself, which was to make the Mine Ban Treaty to include strong language on rehabilitating mine victims. This was a very difficult mission. You can find out why it was difficult here http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/114666/ichaptersection_singledocument/8461edac-d626-4862-8c52-d1ad2a9050d6/en/03_Landmine+Survivors+Speak+Out.pdf. But she was very determined to achieve her goal, you can see it from her thank-you notes.

The final draft of the Mine Ban Treaty would be negotiated in Oslo, Sep 1-18, 1997, which is merely several days from her second holiday with Dodi. Although it was not easy to make policy maker changed their mind, but the mine victims were absolutely entitled to certain form of rehabilitation assistance LEGALLY. But they were too weak, too scattered, and their voice was too small to be heard. Chance was slim that their rightful interest would be appreciated if there was not a loud voice to speak for them, to attract press coverage of their stories, as what Diana said at the beginning of her speech:

"For the mine is a stealthy killer. Long after conflict is ended, its innocent victims die or are wounded singly, in countries of which we hear little. Their lonely fate is never reported ..."

In her Le Monde interview, Diana defined her role as a "messenger". It is not that she had any political power which could single-handly change the mind of policy makers, it is because of the virtue of fact that the mine victims were completely entitled to their own right. What the victims needed was a loud voice to speak for them, to make the world notice that their legal right had been neglected. That explains why Diana would have been so adamantly trying to seek as much attention and publicity as possible before the Oslo conference. It seems she not only wanted the attention from Britain, but also from the whole world. The louder her voice was, the more people can hear the victims' voice. She was their messenger.

But in order to make her voice loud at that moment, very unfortunately, because of the Kelly Fisher's case, she had to sacrifice a great deal of her reputation. That is why I said "she sacrificed her reputation to help the poor".

Actually this is her own words to her work partner when she was in Bosnia (Aug 8-10) visiting the mine victims there,

The reporters and photographers have made my life horrible, so I would like to make their life horrible by taking them to places they normally otherwise would not visit and covering issues they normally otherwise would not cover.

 

[Jacknch]

Not quite - she was going to resign for ALL of her charities but was told that she wouldn't be able to continue to live at KP rent free if she wasn't doing some work and so she decided to keep a few.

She actually announced that she was resigning from all but backtracked a few days later when she realised that she would lose her home if she did that.

She had to keep working in the charity field to pay the rent.

Can anyone remember what happened after Diana's 1992 (I think) announcement during a speech that she was withdrawing from public life? I remember we didn't see her for a while, then she started appearing in public without royal protection and everything ended up going back to normal. Are we saying now that she decided again a few years later to withdraw from public life once more?

 

[Dman]

Can anyone remember what happened after Diana's 1992 (I think) announcement during a speech that she was withdrawing from public life? I remember we didn't see her for a while, then she started appearing in public without royal protection and everything ended up going back to normal. Are we saying now that she decided again a few years later to withdraw from public life once more?

Diana wanted to step back from public life for a while, because she was going though a very difficult time in her private life. She knew she would never been able to totally withdraw from public life.

People think that Diana just dropped all her charities, but she really wanted to focus on a select few that she could actively be involved in. She was about to embark on an aids campaign with President's Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela. Just before her passing, Diana was on the verge of turning her life around.

I feel bad Diana never got a chance to turn her narrative around.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Can anyone remember what happened after Diana's 1992 (I think) announcement during a speech that she was withdrawing from public life? I remember we didn't see her for a while, then she started appearing in public without royal protection and everything ended up going back to normal. Are we saying now that she decided again a few years later to withdraw from public life once more?

It was 1993 when she made the announcement.

She stopped for a few weeks as she was told - no work = no home.

This was before the divorce negotiations began - even in passing let alone in earnest.

The divorce was inevitable at that stage - and there were behind the scenes talks between the lawyers beginning but nothing official until she did the Panorama interview in which she admitted adultery herself and accusing her husband on not being up to the job.

 

[Dman]

It was 1993 when she made the announcement.

She stopped for a few weeks as she was told - no work = no home.

This was before the divorce negotiations began - even in passing let alone in earnest.

The divorce was inevitable at that stage - and there were behind the scenes talks between the lawyers beginning but nothing official until she did the Panorama interview in which she admitted adultery herself and accusing her husband on not being up to the job.

Both Charles and Diana's interviews in 94-95 pretty much did them in. They needed some clarity and the divorce had to happen. I'm glad their bitterness ended though. None of their silly actions could continue.

 

[Roslyn]

It was 1993 when she made the announcement.

She stopped for a few weeks as she was told - no work = no home.

Bertie, would you please tell us your source for this ultimatum. Sarah Bradford's book tells us that the Queen and Prince Philip backed her 1993 decision.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Can anyone remember what happened after Diana's 1992 (I think) announcement during a speech that she was withdrawing from public life? I remember we didn't see her for a while, then she started appearing in public without royal protection and everything ended up going back to normal. Are we saying now that she decided again a few years later to withdraw from public life once more?

I can't find the number of public appearances she made in 1994 and 1995 but, IIRC, at the end of 1993, she gave her famous "time and space" speech in which she said she needed to focus on healing in her private life. At that point, she cut back on her public appearances and never got back up to her pre-separation levels. After the divorce, Diana formally resigned from 100 charities and remained a patron of just 6.

A lot of things were going on but I find it hard to believe that Diana would have been forced to leave Kensington Palace under any circumstances. The royal family and the government would have been very concerned not only for Diana's safety, but for the security of her sons while they were with her. If she had refused to make any public appearances, Charles probably would have paid the full market rent for the Kensington flat.

 

[Duchessmary]

She was the mother of the future King.

What I find fascinating, especially after watching the special on CNN on Prince Charles and his marriage to Camilla, is that she obviously had some grooming and intense coaching before marrying Charles. If you watch Diana's very early speeches as Princess of Wales, she was almost shaking from head to foot. For a twenty year old or twenty one year old, it must've been terrifying.

 

[soapstar]

I can't find the number of public appearances she made in 1994 and 1995 but, IIRC, at the end of 1993, she gave her famous "time and space" speech in which she said she needed to focus on healing in her private life. At that point, she cut back on her public appearances and never got back up to her pre-separation levels. After the divorce, Diana formally resigned from 100 charities and remained a patron of just 6.

Someone once posted a tally of her engagements and she did 42 in 1994 and 127 in 1995.

 

[Dman]

She was the mother of the future King.

What I find fascinating, especially after watching the special on CNN on Prince Charles and his marriage to Camilla, is that she obviously had some grooming and intense coaching before marrying Charles. If you watch Diana's very early speeches as Princess of Wales, she was almost shaking from head to foot. For a twenty year old or twenty one year old, it must've been terrifying.

The DoC had an apprenticeship before her engagement, Diana was left to sink or swim during her engagement and early years of marriage. It took many years before she gained a great deal of confidence and experience as Princess of Wales. In the end, she did a mighty fine job.