Diana's Life and charity endavours - what could have been

[sandy]

The Fayed story was hearsay IMO> Had there been a press conference with Diana announcing it, then it would have been believable. Diana may have had an idle thought about it and Kay ran with it. Diana had so many sources of funding and did not need Fayed's. though he might have contributed some money to it.

She "talked" of dropping the Red Cross. It does not sound like odd and fitful behavior. She had to regroup. She could not just continue doing the same work she did when she had the HRH for obvious reasons. It seems to be forgotten that there was disapproval of her anti Landmine campaign and she may have been pressured to discontinue it.

She never "talked" publicly about any Fayed foundation. People can say what a deceased person "said" because the person is not around to refute it.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2020, 12:33:24 PM

Trouble is that she might not have stuck at whatever she took up.  when she was In the RF she had support, she had courtiers and advisers and was able to do her job.  But when she had only a few charities, she also had lost many advisers and did not listen to the ones she had left.She was at the mercy of her own whims and friends who suggested things and then she would dabble and move on... She didn't seem to me to be focussed ,and her charities felt that there was no use rellying on her...
Double post auto-merged: March 18, 2020, 09:41:13 PM

The queen did not care what she did.  She didn't expect her, no doubt, to suddnely give up all her patronages.  Diana chose to give them up herself.  She was advised by her PR consultant to be more cautious about giving them all up, but she didn't listen. 

Of course the Queen cared what she did. She was an ex wife and a non royal. The Queen and courtiers would watch to see what she was doing and Diana had to get approval from the Queen as to where she took her sons for vacations.

[QueenAlex]

So she was caving in to pressure about the Landmines? It does not sound as if she was very committed ot her work for them then. 

[sandy]

I said she was pressured I did not say she was caving in. She died on August 31, 1997, how did she have time to cave in?

[QueenAlex]

I said she was pressured I did not say she was caving in. She died on August 31, 1997, how did she have time to cave in?

She was considering giving up the Red Cross.. and doing some other kind of charity work.. or possibly none.  if she was doing so because of pressure from ?  who?  about the natur of the work, that's not what she said when called a "loose canon".    She gave the impression she believed in what she was doing and was committed to it...

[sandy]

If you saw the clip she got questioned about why she was there. Check out youtube.

[QueenAlex]

If you saw the clip she got questioned about why she was there. Check out youtube.

Yes and she said that she wasn't political, that she was taking up the job due to concern for people, from a humanitarian point of view..  Surely you are not saying she was going to bow down to Tory pressure?

[sandy]

I will only say this once more and I am moving on. The woman died on August 31, 1997. Though in future there may be imaginative novelists who write a book about "what if" Diana had lived. I think one was already written where Diana was hiding out and faking her death.

[dianab]

She had to get used to sharing custody, life without the HRH and so on. Diana was one of the most focused people I have seen. She could not have clung to the royal patronages, the Queen may have had plans to transfer them to royal family members.

Diana was sharing custody of her sons for 4  or 5 years when she died. I'm not sure life without the HRH was that different to her than one led since the separation.

[QueenAlex]

Diana was sharing custody of her sons for 4  or 5 years when she died. I'm not sure life without the HRH was that different to her than one led since the separation.

It was different.  Once the divorce happened she was oout of the RF and she lost her HRH.  That made her decide to give up her patronages. 

[dianab]

I disagree that her lfestyle changed or the days she spent with her sons.

[sandy]

She lost her HRH after the divorce, she received a large settlement. She no longer could work for and represent the royals. Lots of differences.

[QueenAlex]

I disagree that her lfestyle changed or the days she spent with her sons.

No but her status changed and she decided to cut back on her charities.  Her PR Adviser advised her against doing it, that it might look like she was dropping all her work in a petulant fit because she had lost the HRH but Diana did not heed her.
Double post auto-merged: March 20, 2020, 12:38:24 AM

She lost her HRH after the divorce, she received a large settlement. She no longer could work for and represent the royals. Lots of differences.

that didn't affect her charity patronages.  She chose to give them up... all at once....

[sandy]

She was going through a divorce, what petulant fit? She was out of the royal family, she was regrouping. No proof that she would not have taken some of them back. Her charities reps turned out at her funeral so obviously they did not hold grudges.

I think she'd have been a huge success.

[QueenAlex]

She was going through a divorce, what petulant fit? She was out of the royal family, she was regrouping. No proof that she would not have taken some of them back. Her charities reps turned out at her funeral so obviously they did not hold grudges.

I think she'd have been a huge success.

Her charities were harldy going to act sulky when she had died tragically... but after her death, the ones she kept said crticial things.  Do you think that they would invite her again to be their patron, when she had walked out once before....

[sandy]

What possible difference does it make now? Diana is dead. She may have regrouped had she lived. Period.

[oak_and_cedar]

but that was what she said in her last talk with Rich Kay.. that she wanted to set up this foundation and work as a private person.. and step back from a "semi royal" charity role...  (although she had already cut down on her charity work.... ). I had beleived her idea was to get more involved wit the 6 charities she had taken up, learn more about them, work with them in depth.  But in fact she seems to have done less for them than if she'd been Royal with 100 patronages to keep up with.   I felt we saw little of her at charity work in the last year.. and her charities felt the same.
And then you hear that she had talked of dropping the Red Cross which had been worknig with her on the Landmines issue..where she had been a big help and it had been a triumph for her in the sense that it got her a lot of positive attention.. and that sounds like odd and fitful behaviour.   I think she was very much at the mercy of whatever caught her attention at the time and it was hard to predict what she would do.  Its hard to imagine that the Fayed Foundation was going to happen but she did talk of it.. and seemed to see herself dropping charity work altogether or cutting back even more...

Richard Kay said that Diana said that. We did not get to hear it from Diana herself. It could very well have been just something she mentioned MAF had suggested. If i'm not mistaken Kay also said he believed Diana and Fayed would have married but later revised that statement.

According to the article I posted she was intent on committing herself to new charities. And it was done without the Fayeds.

[QueenAlex]

Richard Kay said that Diana said that. We did not get to hear it from Diana herself. It could very well have been just something she mentioned MAF had suggested. If i'm not mistaken Kay also said he believed Diana and Fayed would have married but later revised that statement.

According to the article I posted she was intent on committing herself to new charities. And it was done without the Fayeds.

True he revised the statement  in hte light of further information.  He didn't say anything about the charities she had mentoned.  So I think it is fair to say that what he had heard from her, he continued to believe...
I think that her history in the last year of her life showed her to be volatile about her charity work.  She might have improved and committed to things had she lived longer but all the same, I think it is fair to say that one can't be sure.  Charities were disappointed that she had left them so suddenly at the time of the divorce. The charities she kept were somewhat disappointed that she had agreed to stick with the 6 of them.. but had not really "done any deeper work" and had in fact done vey little for one of them..   She had done work for an American AIDS charity rather than the Britsih one of which she was patron.  Perhaps that showed that her heart wasn't in England any more and she was considering moving away....

[sandy]

A major life change like divorce requires some volatility. One can't just stay in the same spot and situation. DIana would have her heart in England always because of her sons.

[Princess Cassandra]

Good info about the Sweet Pea project. That's great! Yes, I think that Diana, had she lived, would definitely have sought out new charities, ways to help others. I don't believe she would have sank back into the shadows and become some sort of social butterfly.

She was a bit lost and finding her way following her divorce, but that encompassed only the last year of her life really, and I think it's a mistake to treat what Diana did or didn't do with her charity work in 1996/97 as a solid template for her life going forward. She was still a young woman with new worlds to conquer when her life ended so prematurely.

So well put! How amazing that her nature and gifts were to reach out to the most unfortunate and helpless ones, and she connected with them and others in the most remarkable way. As time went on her life would have been divided into two main segments: her altruism and those new worlds you mentioned;  and her private relationships (family and otherwise), and she would always have been in the news for both.   

[QueenAlex]

So well put! How amazing that her nature and gifts were to reach out to the most unfortunate and helpless ones, and she connected with them and others in the most remarkable way. As time went on her life would have been divided into two main segments: her altruism and those new worlds you mentioned;  and her private relationships (family and otherwise), and she would always have been in the news for both.

I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity.  She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier.  THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...

[sandy]

She always enjoyed working and she was regrouping. She was indeed involved with the royals since she started dating Charles and was engaged at age 19. It was a big life change for her.  It is unknown if she would have remarried or not. She could have remarried at age 50. Maybe she wanted to be single for a while.  Jacqueline Kennedy was an iconic person and pursued by the press and paparazzi much like DIana.  The press never cooled down on the Jackie saga and i doubt they would have cooled down on Diana.

[Curryong]

I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity.  She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier.  THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...

You keep saying that Diana couldn't commit to charity work, presumably in that brief year she had to live after her divorce, in spite of evidence to the contrary about the Landmines endeavour and the selling of many of her iconic clothes for charity.

Why did she have to live quietly? Not go to parties, mix with any celebrities, some of whom had been her friends for years? Never go out socialising, travelling, to parties?

And why did she have to 'find a few nice men to date'? Presumably Hasnet Khan wasn't 'nice' or acceptable.

And paps followed her everywhere, she meant big bucks to newspapers and magazines all over the world. They wouldn't give that up without a fight. If there was nothing happening in her life then they would make stories up about her. And probably offer people money to do so.

Even today an actor has come out and stated that a couple of British tabloids offered him 70,000 dollars to say that he had dated Meghan Markle when she was single, including made-up dirt on her. They hadn't dated and he refused.

However, if you think that the tabloids wouldn't  have done the same sort of thing with Diana then I've got a bridge to sell you. She remained at the time of her death the most famous woman in the world and that gravy train meant millions to the media during her lifetime.

[oak_and_cedar]

True he revised the statement  in hte light of further information.  He didn't say anything about the charities she had mentoned.  So I think it is fair to say that what he had heard from her, he continued to believe...
I think that her history in the last year of her life showed her to be volatile about her charity work.  She might have improved and committed to things had she lived longer but all the same, I think it is fair to say that one can't be sure.  Charities were disappointed that she had left them so suddenly at the time of the divorce. The charities she kept were somewhat disappointed that she had agreed to stick with the 6 of them.. but had not really "done any deeper work" and had in fact done vey little for one of them..   She had done work for an American AIDS charity rather than the Britsih one of which she was patron.  Perhaps that showed that her heart wasn't in England any more and she was considering moving away....

Well, to me, his revision shows that he did and does put his own interpretation into it. IMO.

I happen to believe that she was sensible in that year. Of course charities that she left would be upset. However, she was no longer an HRH, and to keep being a patron to hundreds of charities, and without the support of the RF staff was just not realistic. IMO.

I think she did 'deeper work'. This is perhaps the reason for her leaving a number of charities. So she could focus on the few big ones.
And she managed to impress President Mandela, for instance, with her work. No small feat, IMO.

Also, her looking into say the 'sweet pea' charity endeavour shows that she spent those months preparing for the fall.

My opinion is that she was busy that year with 'cleaning' out the old with regards to her personal life, but also her professional one. I think she would have continued to be public with her charities.

I do think though that perhaps she would have had a slightly more different approach than the RF, in other words still being public but making more room for being 'private'.

However, IMO, she would not have moved away from England. Harry was only 12 by that time and she would have wanted to be active in both his and Williams life.

I also don't see her wanting to be too far away from any grandchildren.

Double post auto-merged: March 22, 2020, 09:43:45 PM

I am sure that she didn't want to be in the news for her private life.. and I think she'd have been happier if she had given up on the public appearcnes for charity.  She had a gift for people.. but she was tired out with the stress of public appearances.. and didn't seem able to commit to charit work... But maybe if she had give up public life and done something privately, lived quietly on her income and found a few nice men to date, she would have been happier.  THe press would have followed her for a few year with the " who is Di going to marry" but when she reached forty they might well have cooled down on that story...

I don't believe that she would have given up being public for charities. After all, she knew she could draw attention and money into causes simply by lending her name to it.

She did date Fayed, and though I don't think they would have married, I think they would have still dated for a few more months. I think he was nice to her too. IMO.

[QueenAlex]

But she didn't do deeper work.  That may have been her idea at first but instead of learning about charities in depth, she seems to have done less for the few charities she kept... which annoyed some of them.  She talked about dropping  the Red Cross.. and taking up wrok with the Fayeds, which showed to me that she was very vague and uncertain what she was doing. 
If she wasn't considering leaving the UK how come her brother said she "talked endlessly of getting away from Engladn?"

[sandy]

Her brother should have known better, he knew how he was devoted to William and Harry and would not move away from them. She might have had a "vacation home" somewhere but she would be near the boys. She could never have taken them on any permanent basis if she moved out of the country.