Princess Diana

[Charity]

True, and you can think about both of them what you want but you can't deny that they both left a mark on history, Elisabeth worked on the Hungarian case, making Austria and Hungary a double-monarchy - and the first time there really was some form of peace between the two countries since the Rebelions of 1848. And as for Diana, she did allot to make unspoken isseus accepted(Aids, Lepra and such) and had something that made people listen. Something that is missed with humanitarians of these day(after all, Diana had the strenght to reach out and make people care) - and so they both did mean something and both will be remembered.

You are saying no other humanitarian of this day and age has the strength to reach and make people care about issues?  With respect, your comment vastly overrates Diana and horribly underrates the many caring and wonderful humanitarians working for the good of others around the world.  There are many causes that are little spoken of in the tabloids and western news (which were the ones that covered Diana endlessly), but that doesn't meant they are not handled with love and care on a local scale.

Yes, Diana will be remembered for the things she did, but to put her on so high a pedestal is not right and I suspect she wouldn't have wanted that either.

[Terence]

True, and you can think about both of them what you want but you can't deny that they both left a mark on history, Elisabeth worked on the Hungarian case, making Austria and Hungary a double-monarchy - and the first time there really was some form of peace between the two countries since the Rebelions of 1848. And as for Diana, she did allot to make unspoken isseus accepted(Aids, Lepra and such) and had something that made people listen. Something that is missed with humanitarians of these day(after all, Diana had the strenght to reach out and make people care) - and so they both did mean something and both will be remembered.

You are saying no other humanitarian of this day and age has the strength to reach and make people care about issues?  With respect, your comment vastly overrates Diana and horribly underrates the many caring and wonderful humanitarians working for the good of others around the world.  There are many causes that are little spoken of in the tabloids and western news (which were the ones that covered Diana endlessly), but that doesn't meant they are not handled with love and care on a local scale.

Yes, Diana will be remembered for the things she did, but to put her on so high a pedestal is not right and I suspect she wouldn't have wanted that either.

Welcome Charity, very well said.

What the media portrays has never been actuality, and today in this "information age" it's even further from the truth.  I've no idea what went on in Diana's mind, but evidence suggests she learned from her experiences and may not have been adverse to being placed on a pedestal.  JMHO, who knows.  The media is a very two-edged sword for those in its focus.

But for a recent example, how many realize George Bush is highly thought of in many parts of Africa for his support in fighting AIDS there.  Quite opposite the caricature we are all given of an evil, warmongering selfish man.  Go figure.

T

[Romanov_fan]

Diana wouldn't have wanted to be placed on a pedestal, indeed- she was realistic about herself. She said she wanted to be Queen of People's hearts- which she was to many then and today, although not all. That was her ambition, and I would argue, she achieved it. As for her and being a humanitarian, obviously she gave a huge public profile to many causes. I agree that the comparison with humanitarians these days is unfounded. I think what she did do and not many humanitarians can is give so much public attention to causes. She had the world's attention more than most humanitarians- I think thats what Imperial Grounds may have been getting at it. That doesn't mean she was better than other humanitarians- it does mean she could get any cause she took up to get more attention than many humanitarians could ever get- that doesn;t make her better than anyone else who is a humanitarian though. It was just the facts of her life, she got alot of attention, and she used it wisely in some cases (and not so much in  regards to her personal life, perhaps).

[Imperial_Grounds]

I think what she did do and not many humanitarians can is give so much public attention to causes. She had the world's attention more than most humanitarians- I think that's what Imperial Grounds may have been getting at it. That doesn't mean she was better than other humanitarians- it does mean she could get any cause she took up to get more attention than many humanitarians could ever get- that doesn;t make her better than anyone else who is a humanitarian though.

That is indeed what I wanted to say, not that she was better than others but that she just had 'the public eye' on her and therefore used that to bring those issues in the news. It might sound like I tried to make more of her than she was but I can't help that i respect her for the wonderful work she did, and the way she handled personal problems to help others. But it is true she got the fear of AIDS and such out of the world, those people were misunderstood and rejected by society, Diana used her fame and the publicity she got to do something good. So i was just saying that she got more attention from the media then most humanitarians indeed, and that she used that to bring several issues into the news.

[Adagietto]

This sounds to me more like mythology than history, the notion that Diana single-handedly transformed public attitudes to AIDS. As if nobody else was doing good work in that field.

[Imperial_Grounds]

I am not saying no one else was doing good work for AIDS-victims but that Diana was the one who made it accepted, not that she was the only humanitarian who worked on it but that she made it acceptable widely - while people didn't know how to act towards AIDS-victims before that, and that is what she did for other causes too - she got people to listen, and could raise much more funds than most other humanitarians - only by being who she was, so I am actualy saying that Diana made people listen, and I am not saying other humanitarians don't make people listen but that Diana always had the attention of the people, and used that for her good causes.

[Eric_Lowe]

Diana did more charity work than Sisi did. She also had more of a seperate agenda than Sisi, who just want to run away from her duties. Sisi had mo excuse in her later years to do more for her country (as Sophie faded into the background). Her only foray was Hungary, and after that retreated aboard again. Her extreme attitude to her children (love/hate with Rudolf, complete disinterest in Gisela and smotherling love to Valerie) scarred them in a way. Diana was more of a mother to her boys than Sisi ever did.

[Imperial_Grounds]

True and I do think Sisi realised that she could've prevented Rudolf's death - or thought she could - because she and her son were alike and therefore would've understood eachother, if only Sisi accepted that and wasn't so scared being a mother(also that is Sophie's doing I think, she took the children away from their mother and this might have caused quite a trauma on Sisi, making her afraid to bound with her childeren - out of fear to lose them, but then again she had strange relationships with her children as you said.

[Eric_Lowe]

Yes...Sisi knew that and regretted not taking him into her confidence. It was that guilt that proved to be the cross that Sisi had to carry. Indeed she could have done more for her family and country. Valerie was one who thought that her mother was "lazy" after seeing what she was capable of doing in rare occations. Diana on the other hand was too ambitious for the House of Windsor. They would have preferred her to be like The Countess of Wessex (Sophie) or Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla Diana's sucessor) who did their duty asnd shut up about politics and contraversal causes (like Aids & Landmines).

[Adagietto]

Aids was not really a controversial cause, I think; the landmines might be regarded as being a bit too political. One might compare her to Princess Anne, who does work for charity each year than Diana did in her whole lifetime, but doesn't draw attention to herself and is resolutely unglamorous.

[Imperial_Grounds]

True, but it was the glamourus part of Diana that draw the attention of the media, and she did use that for her good causes. But that's only my opinion and as for the AIDS-issue, I don't really know how the situation was back then in the 80's but from what i've read and seen in docu's/movie's it was controversial as it was a new life-threatening disease, and people didn't know how to act towards it(Gia Garachi is a good example, she was the first female victim of AIDS and was a former model, her family and friends stated that in her final months only few people visited her - and even so, the was put in quirantine, and only could be visited when people wore special clothing -, and that after her death the undertaker was reluctant to work on her body at first. Diana just showed that you don't need to be scared of the people who care the disease, or the HIV-virus. It is true that she wasn't the first, or only, humanitarian to work on it but she made it acceptable. That was what I tried to say in my former post that she used the attention she got on behave of her humanitarian causes.

[Eric_Lowe]

Indeed. The photo of Diana shook hands (gloveless !) with an Aids patient finally shatter the myth of how the sickness was transmitted. It would not be something that the Princess Royal would do either. The difference was that Diana gave her heart out to those people and she was loved in return. She was advised against being the head of "the Gay Cancer" (Aids was then called) by the men in gray from the palace. Diana defied them (much to the delight of those invloved with Aids work). The Queen, who tried to never put a foot wrong would never gambled with such a cause. Sisi also did her thing with the mental institutions. It was greatly improved due to her interest, although she did not particpate in the reform and only paid sporadic visits...

[Adagietto]

Personally I much prefer the Princess Royal's - and, in a more gracious vein, Queen's - approach; I can be quite sure that they will not make a show of loving me, and then I will not be obliged to fulfil the other side of the bargain and love them in return, or regard them as being some sort of moral exemplar. In my view the monarchy forms part of the ceremonial and (as Bagehot put it) dignified part of the apparatus of state, and members of the royal family are there to perform a public role in a proper and dignified manner, not court admiration as being exceptional individuals in any personal sense. The idea of a member of a royal family courting my love simply appals me. After hearing Tony Blair's little speech about Diana after her death ("But people everywhere, not just here in Britain, kept faith with Princess Diana. They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was the People's Princess and that is how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and our memories for ever.") I remember thinking: this could make a Republican of me yet.

[Eric_Lowe]

Very different approaches. Just like Queen Alexandra & Queen Mary. Their differnces came in away they express themselves. When a member of the Sandingham estate died, Queen Mary dropped by and comfort the widow. She asked where her late husband worked. After recieving the answer she replied "A jolly good lot...A jolly good lot !" and walked out the door. half and hour later, Queen Alexandra came, approach the widow and clasp her into her arms and cried "My poor dear !". Which one is more heartfelt ? Diana 'sapproach came right out of Alexandra's school, which the Queen's approach resembled Queen Mary's more restrained way. The time had come for Diana's way of doing things. Actually in reality she was taking a leaf from an old book. Alexandra was very indivual in her ways of charity too. Her visit to the elephant man John Merrick, would not have amused both the present Queen or Princess Royal in that matter. However it would be something understood by both Diana and Sisi...

[Grace]

Why can't we just respect and have admiration if we feel it for each individual royal's approach?  Diana's tactile way with people made her universally loved and brought another face to the monarchy but Anne's formal handshake in the white gloves is fine also by many people who appreciate more formality.  If they have to act in a way that's not natural, it's hardly going to come across as sincere, is it?