She almost singlehandedly helped restore humanity and empathy to pathologized gay men dying of AIDS. The photograph of her shaking hands with a man in the hospital being treated for AIDS was revolutionary at a time when hospital staff routinely refused to enter rooms where AIDS patients were lying helpless in bed. Their meals were left in the hall on the floor for them to fetch themselves.

It is difficult to describe how reviled gay men were at the time. Her compassion was the beginning of the change. She did that by herself. No one told her to do that. She didn’t have handlers advising her.

She was also on a quest to have the use of land mines banned world wide.

Besides her good works, of which there were many, she would not conform to royal standards. Even holding hands and kissing poor kids and any child she could was unusually charming.
We all knew Charles was banging Camilla, she gained admiration for not just taking the money and settling for a lonely, gilded life.
She was really good mom, hands on rather than nannies.
Then, when happiness appears in reach, she dies a tragic death, a la Marilyn. Which some believe was a royal assassination.

https://time.com/4914377/princess-diana-humanitarian-work/
She was a Fundraiser for hundreds of causes that brought attention to the world to become more compassionate in our lives as well.

To add to what @Hawaii_Jake said, I watched a priest refuse to give a dying man Last Rites because he had AIDS & Diana was visiting with them, hugging them, & bringing respect to them instead of the ugliness of how they were being treated at the time!!!

She also tried to take care of ALL the little children. She had a WONDERFUL heart & tried to use her status to make a change in this mean old world!!!

She was the PEOPLE’S PRINCESS & tried to use it to make things BETTER!!!

Everything the above jellies said. Also, she took her young children to homeless shelters to help feed the homeless to teach them compassion.

Her work with landmines https://time.com/5682006/princess-diana-landmines/

and AIDS. https://www.tht.org.uk/news/how-princess-diana-challenged-hiv-stigma-every-hug

She was used as an acceptable candidate for princess because she was the right pedigree and a virgin; at the same time Prince Charles was in love with another. Diana was supposedly (according to the news I watched at the time) one of the first royals to spend so much time with her children.

Her death is marked, because it was a tragedy. It’s not uncommon to remember someone on their death anniversary.

In a world full of incredibly evil rich people, not being one of them is a huge deal.

People are constantly bombarded with messages about how being nice, compassionate and caring are weak traits and the world basically forces you to be a tribal douchebag.

She could have “played the game” and had a good life, buckling to peer pressure, but was more courageous than her peers.

What are your thoughts now @LostInParadise?

For me, on a personal level, I watched Diana grow up. She was about five years older than I was, and I was not into the idea of a regular girl becoming a princess, necessarily, but I think Diana, for me, brought the world of royalty to regular people. Elizabeth and her children were kind of dowdy and unreachable, even though they may not have been, but Diana wasn’t. When I was growing up, in the 1970s, Margaret and Ann were sometimes seen in gossip pages, in Studio 54 or on vacation, but they were not anybody I was interested in learning about. They were like oddities.

Diana was young and pretty and very much a “regular person.” Add to that the tragic tale of her relationship with Charles and the royal family, add to that the good works she did that were so well documented in the press, add to that her fierce independence and growing into her own as far as not living the life that was expected of her, but living the life she wanted to live. She didn’t shrink into the corner when she got separated from Charles, she continued having fun and doing charitable work and kind of had a “fuck the royals” attitude which was fun to watch, because I’m sure Elizabeth wasn’t thrilled with Diana’s continued place in the spotlight.

And like any famous person who dies too young, you’re left wondering what wonderful things they would have and could have and should have accomplished, how they could have changed the world some more, and hopefully, how much fun it would have been to watch them.

Regarding Charles, he was horrible in that he loved Camilla the whole time, and Diana was simply suitable to produce the heirs to the thrown, but Charles also does very good work regarding green energy and he is an environmentalist. He was often dismissed as being too new age or even silly with his love and promotion of nature, conservation, and his concerns for climate, but now he is taken more seriously.

My point is not to defend Charles, he was a shit to Diana in more ways than one, but my guess is he supported her in her desire to do good in the world. Being princess did give her access to positively affect so many people in her country and across the globe.

Prince Charles still goes on fox hunts, so he still has a way to go in his love for nature and conservation.

@cookieman , I was not aware of the extent of Diana’s charitable work. I will have to reconsider.

To add an answer to the post, we often mention the day of death for other celebs, vs. their day of birth, for example Elvis Presley. These dates are often remembered because if it was monumental for you, you may remember what you were doing when you heard the news. I wasn’t alive when Kennedy got shot, but I was alive and remember what I was doing when John Jr’s plane went down, what I was doing when I heard the news about the Challenger disaster, what I was doing when I heard Elvis died, and what I was doing when I heard the news about Diana, whereas I couldn’t tell you Diana’s birthday, Elvis’ birthday or John Jr’s birthday.

@chyna I’m pretty sure fox hunting is banned in England now; are you sure Charles goes on them?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139491/Ban-hunting-I-leave-says-Charles.html

^^ Huh. Your link wouldn’t load. But here’s an article that does say they were banned as I had remembered. It says however the bans are being ignored sometimes:

https://www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/hunting/fox-hunting/#:~:text=Is%20fox%20hunting%20illegal%3F,Scotland)%20Act%202002%20in%20Scotland.

And according to this article he supported it but is not doing it since it has become illegal:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/nov/06/monarchy.hunting

@janbb: That’s weird. I just clicked on it and it took me right to the article.

@jca2 I did a search for it. Couldn’t get the whole article but got the headline. The date was from September, 2002 – before the ban. It certainly seems he was against the ban and would like fox hunting restored but he has not left England since it was enacted.

I kissed her hand as a young teen when she visited my town back in 82’...she smelled divine.

@jca2 I got the headers & outline of the page but not the article. I had to leave at the time. It’s still not loading everything for me, but I checked out the other links. I’m NOT a fan of Charles & I seem to remember when he claimed to have given up hunting fox after the uproar it caused. I NEVER really believed him!!!