All memorials to Diana including the fountain, playground, and statue discussio

[Curryong]

A thread dedicated to the all of the memorials to the late Diana, Princess of Wales.



I have mixed feelings about a Diana statue, I have to admit. On the one hand, it's a permanent reminder to her sons of their mother and her life. It is going to be near KP where they both live and they can visit it sometimes for a few moments of quiet reflection.

On the other hand, a statue doesn't do good of itself, does it, and is often just a receptacle for bird poo! It's often far better, I feel, to continue the things that were important to the memorialised person in life, such as charity work that helps and sustains others. This both sons are doing, and that's good.

Charles has been consulted of course and the Queen has given permission for this statue. I do wonder sometimes what Charles thinks of his sons regularly evoking their mother in speeches and when speaking to the media, especially as there is a perception among some royal watchers that he and William really aren't that close.

[Trudie]

^ I hope it irks Charles that his sons regularly evoke their mother as it should. Diana accomplished a great amount of awareness in the fields of homelessness, AIDS, landmines, the arts, leprosy the list goes on but she also achieved her greatest accomplishment as a mother and unheard of in the BRF a very hands on mother who loved and guided her boys in normal childhood adventures nursery school outside the palace, trips to McDonald's and amusement parks and public duties as appropriate as they got older.

To Charles Diana was a brood mare, to William and Harry she was their mother and protector. William and Harry witnessed first hand the outpouring of love for their mother at her passing and as children were in no position to make decisions to honor her. The time is now right that William and Harry not only remember their mother but to keep her memory and humanitarian legacy alive so future generations can know her the mother of a King.

[wannable]

This is very sweet of Diana's children.

I wonder where will it exactly be placed though, as there is 5 existing statues/memorials at KP palace - gardens.

[royalanthropologist]

^ I hope it irks Charles that his sons regularly evoke their mother as it should.

The last thing any family needs is constant squabbling and quarreling. The public/supporters played a very big role in turning the Prince and Princess of Wales against one another. Now a celebration of Diana is about to be turned into some sort of revenge exercise against the royal family??? Then people wonder why the establishment is so eager to forget about Diana.

[gmod]Please use the Quote option when quoting another Member. Makes it so much easier to know who and what you are replying to. Thanks. SCx [/gmod]

[royalanthropologist]

Btw, the commentary on DM is brutal. It seems the Diana fans have managed to alienate neutral members of the public with their harping on about why they need to put the statue in front of Buckingham Palace and Clarence house in order to annoy the royal family. Absolutely pathetic. Diana was an ex-wife and ex-daughter-in-law who they did not like or get on well with. The feelings of mistrust and antipathy were mutual. Her sons have sensibly proposed to put a statue for her in her old home near them. That has nothing to do with the rest of the royal family and even less to do with Camilla or Charles. I would hope they would not attend. It should be Diana's sons and her siblings/friends; otherwise we will have another long cry about who needs to be booed and hounded.

Still, the "fans" are not satisfied. They want someone to be punished and hounded on the day of the unveiling. Diana has been turned into a figure of hate, revenge and even obsessiveness. That is not healthy IMO. It actually makes perfectly reasonable people more aggressive to the extent that they say things that are not very nice about her.

[Trudie]

I'm not interested in the comments of the DM all I am say is it is right and proper to have a statue of the mother of a future King as a reminder of all the work she did as POW on behalf of the monarchy. Diana lived her whole adult life at KP and I agree with William and Harry that is the place for it to be.

[royalanthropologist]

I have always thought a memorial for her was appropriate. It only becomes negative when some people try to use every memorial as a means of sowing discord amongst members of the royal family. The vengefullness after all these years is off-putting. I mentioned DM because I always assumed the readers there were mad about Diana but the statue story has riled them for some reason.

[TLLK]

I have mixed feelings about a Diana statue, I have to admit. On the one hand, it's a permanent reminder to her sons of their mother and her life. It is going to be near KP where they both live and they can visit it sometimes for a few moments of quiet reflection.

On the other hand, a statue doesn't do good of itself, does it, and is often just a receptacle for bird poo! It's often far better, I feel, to continue the things that were important to the memorialised person in life, such as charity work that helps and sustains others. This both sons are doing, and that's good.

Charles has been consulted of course and the Queen has given permission for this statue.  I do wonder sometimes what Charles thinks of his sons regularly evoking their mother in speeches and when speaking to the media, especially as there is a perception among some royal watchers that he and William really aren't that close.

Unless it has those metal "porcupine quills" covering the surface it will become a bird roost!  Personally I loved the fountain as it was an unique and playful memorial which I though fit her personality. Absolutely agree @Curryong that QEII and the PoW are well aware of their plans and the brothers would have  the consultants available to help with design and execution for this statue.

[TLLK]

Princess Diana: Princes commission statue 20 years after her death - BBC News

This article mentions that HM QEII supports her grandsons' decision. Funding for the statue is to be met privately so likely sources include money from the brothers and their relatives, friends etc... I don't see any mention of public funds.

[Curryong]

The Spencers behaved appallingly in the matter of Diana's godchildren, I agree. However, as far as royals in the BRF are concerned we don't know whether any in the direct line and their consorts ever left a penny to charities. All their wills are sealed for all time. I remember a man who thought he was Princess Margaret's illegitimate son fought a legal battle all the way up to the High Court to get the right to see what was inside it. To this day we don't know how much the Queen Mother left.

I see the will Princess Diana made as a rather perfunctory one. She was a wonderfully healthy woman of 36 who had just got divorced and was looking forward to a new phase of life. She thought she had forty years ahead of her at least and probably felt she would have tons of time to expand that will in the way she wished, or write a new one. Careless, no doubt, but a lot of people don't tend to things like wills until it's too late.

The statue isn't like that ridiculous hedge that's going up at KP. It's not going to take any public money, not even indirectly out of the sovereign grant. If it's her sons' money and that of her old friends and supporters I really don't see that it is anybody else's business what it cost. I'm not a great fan of statues per se, and would rather see a grant towards childhood diseases or a scholarship endowed in Diana's name myself, but I'm not William or Harry.

[Trudie]

I agree with @SophieChloe about payment, especially since Diana left them a fortune of nearly $50 million and left virtually nothing to any charity (I think one of the very few royals who never bequeathed anything to charity, despite her humanitarian work). Even the little that was left to the god children was snatched away from them by the Spencers (how mean can you get????).

I believe William and Harry are paying for it using private donations but, Diana I think did leave some money to charity though she also may have thought she had raised enough money over the years and would continue to do so. Diana left in her will a codicil or wishes to be carried out regarding her godchildren that her mother and sister Lady Sarah ignored for what reason is beyond me.

[royalanthropologist]

You are quite right @Curryong that Diana being a young, healthy woman never thought of writing a detailed will. Also, the royals tend to seal their wills but over time it becomes clear that they leave plenty of bequests to their favorite charities. It was interesting to me to look back at the contrast between the wills or non-wills of Mary I and Elizabeth I of England. Mary was supposed to be the wicked, cruel will but she left a very generous will with countless charities. Elizabeth by contrast was not willing to make any will or any bequest lest it touches on her wealth or gives people ideas about the succession. Just goes to show, that people are quite complex with a public face and a shadow face that can be the exact opposite of what we think of them.
Double post auto-merged: January 30, 2017, 05:46:29 PM

Btw I do not rate the Spencers at all. They come across as a rather horrid family but those who visit their estate say that Johnny was actually quite kind to the public....although we also hear he beat his wife.  Charles Spencer is just a nasty man, all round. I really can find nothing good to say about him. The two sisters seem close to William and Harry so they must be doing something right.

[sandy]

I agree with @SophieChloe about payment, especially since Diana left them a fortune of nearly $50 million and left virtually nothing to any charity (I think one of the very few royals who never bequeathed anything to charity, despite her humanitarian work). Even the little that was left to the god children was snatched away from them by the Spencers (how mean can you get????).

The money mostly went to her sons and perhaps Diana believed they would use the money for charitable work. Diana had she lived would IMO of course have given of her time and money to charities.
Double post auto-merged: January 30, 2017, 07:56:29 PM

I have always thought a memorial for her was appropriate. It only becomes negative when some people try to use every memorial as a means of sowing discord amongst members of the royal family. The vengefullness after all these years is off-putting. I mentioned DM because I always assumed the readers there were mad about Diana but the statue story has riled them for some reason.

How the other royals think is subject to speculation. I think Charles and the Queen appear to have given this project a green light. She was their mother after all and the royal sons William and Harry have every right to do this. There are always DM readers who make snarky comments about Diana, generally the same ones who trash Diana in all stories about her. I recognize some of the names already, the usual ones who bash Diana I think it has nothing to do with the statue per se.  I also think some negativity comes from people who talk about William and Harry playing the Diana card.  I see this statue as all positive. If the Queen did not want it, it would not be happening. I think Diana's grandchildren Charlotte and George will appreciate the statue as will possible future grandchildren.

[amabel]

The Spencers behaved appallingly in the matter of Diana's godchildren, I agree. However, as far as royals in the BRF are I see the will Princess Diana made as a rather perfunctory one. She was a wonderfully healthy woman of 36 who had just got divorced and was looking forward to a new phase of life. She thought she had forty years ahead of her at least and probably felt she would have tons of time to expand that will in the way she wished, or write a new one. Careless, no doubt, but a lot of people don't tend to things like wills until it's too late.

wel yes of course ti was a "holder" will rather than her absolute final wishes.  Odds are that she was told that she should make a new Will on being divorced and she did the simplest thing of dividing her money betwee her 2 sons.

[TLLK]

I sincerely hope that it will not look like the one featured in the DM's article. That one is terrifying IMHO. I wonder if if will be based upon a formal portrait or a casual one? Somehow I doubt it will feature Diana in full gala (tiara, long gown, orders etc...) nor do I think that she'll be given a Greek revival appearance (toga, sandals).

I'm hoping it's a bronze as I find that it would be a "warmer" material to work with rather than marble. Any thoughts RIF posters as to the design?

[Curryong]

^ I too would like to see a bronze Diana statue, and probably due to costs I'd guess that's what it will be. There are many lovely photographs of Diana in casual dress with small children around her and I think that would portray her best. Diana wearing one of her longer dresses would look quite appropriate, I think.

[royalanthropologist]

I would suggest a roman-type or Grecian pose. Informal statues do not always work so although Diana loved children, a statue of her with children might come across as being rather tacky. Unfortunately she never got to the stage where she could wear garter robes or even a crown so no such photos exist. There is a rather lovely pre-engagement photo in green which might just work. Glad that Rosa Monckton is not part of the team. She really botched up the first tribute.

[TLLK]

I would suggest a roman-type or Grecian pose.

So a formal and classic pose for the statue.  :)

[royalanthropologist]

Yes, I think. You see Diana was always a princess and in many ways a model of what a princess ought to look like in the modern age. However, she never quite got to the old grandeur of a queen. If they make her informal, it would be just like another celebrity (something you might find in Hollywood). She was once a princess of the UK so they have to emphasize that in some way. That is why I suggested the pre-engagement photo. She looked so young, beautiful and fresh. The early marriage photos looked painfully said; the post separation ones looked bitter; the in-divorce-proceeding photos looked twisted; and the post-divorce looked wonderful. Maybe they can get inspiration from the Testino set if not the engagement ones. Just a thought.
Double post auto-merged: February 02, 2017, 06:09:01 AM

This is what I mean. Any of these two photos would work:

1000+ images about May 11/Official Lady Diana Spencer Engagement Portrait on Pinterest | Royal weddings, Posts and Souvenirs

[TLLK]

1000+ images about May 11/Official Lady Diana Spencer Engagement Portrait on Pinterest | Royal weddings, Posts and Souvenirs
Very lovely photos from the engagement but I have to wonder if William and Harry would choose something from the early to mid-nineties because that would be closer to her age at the time of her death. While those weren't her happiest years, something from those years might be more recognizable to the public.

https://www.google.com/search?q=princes+diana+with+landmine+victims&tbm=isch&imgil=PYCo9CsQia82yM%253A%253B3f1KLhxXViDcpM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fangolarising.blogspot.com%25252F2013%25252F01%25252Fupdate-on-princess-dianas-angola.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=PYCo9CsQia82yM%253A%252C3f1KLhxXViDcpM%252C_&usg=__J9JVdaQwVPgcz11K7fpBaNZjH30%3D&biw=1280&bih=691&ved=0ahUKEwivkcq66vLRAhXnwVQKHVy9B-MQyjcIMw&ei=XeSTWO_uGeeD0wLc-p6YDg#imgrc=PYCo9CsQia82yM:

Here is one taken when she was in Angola for the landmine victims trip. Perhaps something that would feature their mother's expression when she was interacting with people?

[Curryong]

It's tricky isn't it, because we just don't know which period of Diana's life her sons would which to portray? Diana looked an absolute darling when she was very young and newly engaged/married.

However, would William and Harry choose the young girl over the motherly figure they both remember? JMO, but I do feel they will choose a Diana who is doing something. She was so associated with children throughout her life, both well and sick, that I suggested before something along those lines, ie holding children, though I know that such a statue could turn out to look rather disneyish and mawkish.

Perhaps her sons might want a Diana sitting and in reflective mood, but to me that doesn't speak to the person, a woman who was intensely alive. Perhaps they will go for the Diana of the later 1990's, involved in the Landmines campaign, or the one closely involved in the fight against AIDS prejudice, or would that be too full-on? Difficult.... 

[TLLK]

I agree @Curryong. Between four people we've had quite the variety of suggestions of how the late Princess of Wales should be depicted. I'm curious to see what her sons will opt for if preliminary sketches are released.

[royalanthropologist]

"I read that Diana did not like the way she looked pre-engagement and at the engagement".

Oh the foolishness of youth @sandy :no: In my opinion Diana's best photos were the ones at the engagement and the ones after the divorce. But she is not alone in not liking her youthful photos despite the fact that many of us see them as some of her best.

[sandy]

I think it would be most appropriate to have her statue when she looked her best. She was just a kid when she got engaged. The off the rack blue suit and the puffy sleeved engagement dress were "historic" but not iconic.

[royalanthropologist]

I have to disagree a bit that Diana was a kid when she got married. She was 18 and there have been emperors and empresses who took control of their estates at that age or even younger. Indeed she was in the age of majority, although a tad under-educated and under-exposed. In terms of looks, she looked magnificent. Even in the early years of the marriage she looked great but very, very sad. There is a photo of her at a state banquet which is just heartbreaking in its sadness.

In the late eighties and early nineties, Diana had become cynical and somewhat manipulative. It showed in her face and dress. There was always a message of defiance or subtle upstaging e.g the revenge dress and the panorama outfit. To me those were not her best years because she was in the midst of a battle.

After the divorce, she came into her own looks-wise. Although she no longer had the glow of youth; this was a mature, serious and beautiful woman. She had a purpose in life apart from getting back at her husband, his family and his mistress. The glamorous humanitarian was born and she had shed some of the gaudy dresses/trinkets of her royal life. To this day the Testino photographs looks stunning, some of her finest moments aesthetically.