lord_rankin said:
Do you really think that Diana, whatever her faults, would have wanted to abolish her children's birthright? I seriously doubt that she stayed home at nights plotting to make Britain a republic
.
Of course, not lord rankin.
Her friends said many times during her lifetime that she did not want to destroy her children's (especially William's) inheritance. What I believe happened is that Diana mistakenly thought she alone knew what was best for the monarchy and only she could lead it forward.
During Diana's tenure as Princess of Wales, reporters like Richard Kay continually disparaged the rest of the Royal Family as cold, out of touch, unfeeling, cruel, insensitive, inhuman and showed Diana as an example of how the Royal Family should be, open, hugging, spontaneous, someone who gives sound bites, candid photos and candid interviews. Now you may find it interesting that Richard Kay was one of Diana's closest friends. If Diana, as I suspect, mistakenly thought she was the saviour of the British monarchy it was because people like Richard Kay told her that over and over while she was trying to sort out some pretty difficult situations within the Royal Family. Is it any wonder that she did as she did? Its totally understandable given the people around her but whatever her reasons for doing so the effects on the monarchy were the same.
Now lord rankin, you mention that her legacy should not focus on her faults and her missteps. I totally agree, but just to focus on the hugging Diana who visited an AIDS hospital or the proud mum hugging her sons doesn't do justice to her legacy either.
Diana's legacy, in my mind, is of a woman who dared to care and dared to show that she cared. It is also a legacy of a woman who in her own pain lashed out at the monarchy and in her pain hurt those who had never hurt her while also doing incalculable damage to herself. Yes, its a conflicted legacy, not all bad and not all good but I think that is a by-product of the modern media age. In fact to talk about Diana's legacy without talking about the current practice of the press to pry into every single private detail of a public figure's life (especially royal life) is to ignore what is possibly Diana's biggest legacy. If people are focusing on the unpleasant private facts of Diana's life, they are following Diana's lead who herself focused on many private embarassing details of her life and released these details in interviews and books. And the general public is not only doing it with Diana's life but every new royal princess and celebrity that comes to light. After Diana, we treat celebrities much differently than before and we treat royals much much differently than before. Before Diana, the press was interested in the royal family but still deferential; the press now looks on Diana's future daughter-in-law Kate Middleton as a piece of hot copy. Even Diana's death is a permanent monument to the insatiable nature of this press coverage and its tragic consequences.
I think it was a byproduct of her need to get close to people. She wanted to hug, she wanted to break down the barriers, she wanted to disclose her private thoughts and feelings to show that she was just like you and me and this willingness to be open had a special captivating charm. But the openness had a drawback. It was dangerous for herself and for others around her.
That is why I believe her legacy as a whole was conflicted. And so when we're talking about a monument to celebrate someone's life, it is normal to reflect on that person's entire legacy not just one part or another.