Royals Before Diana

[Julian]

No, it isn't a total falsehood.

Yes it is a falsehood. Just because in your "opinion" some people confuse royalty with celebrity certainly doesn't mean royalty has become celebrity, nor even that most people don't understand the difference.

Diana went to great lengths, including lying to her own and the Queen's staff, to manipulate press attention and coverage in order to promote the image she wanted to promote and to damage other people in the process.

Diana went to great lengths to protect her image and reputation and I for one am glad she did. Every human being has that right, especially considering to what "great lengths" some haters on this board go to excoriate her on a daily basis. Sorry, she's not a saint but she's certainly not responsible for the ills of the monarchy whatever those are in Britain much less everywhere else in the world. As to anyone lying, the Queen's staff lied then, lied since and her husband lied as well, going to great lengths to damage her however he could manage it.

The only people who have "damaged" or caused problems for the monarchy are those still in it along with royal staff and supposed supporters who have ill advised them. The monarchy was changing from the Sixties from the time of the royal documentary which they now regret. If they wanted to keep the monarchy mysterirous and above the crowd, then perhaps they should also not have instituted royal walkabouts and other such populist gimmicks. All this of course, long before Diana. Even Princess Anne recounts how she disliked being thrust intoc crowds at walkabout at 17, what a mess that documentary was.

She also made quite a habit of publicising her private life if she thought it would help her image. Largely as a result of her influence, people seem to be focussed on the entertainment value of the private lives of the royal family these days as opposed to their public life.

Would she be unique in doing so if that had been the case? Actually, she never did anyway, since it was when her marriage was long since dead anyway and both she and her husband were looking for ways out of it that she ever began speaking up in her own defense. Aside from the fact that this is all such ancient water under the bridge people like you seem to go on being fixated on, I would just conclude by saying that people need to take responsibility for their own lives in the present. Also, powerful institutions are responsible for the mess they make of their own choice. The fact that the Prince of Wales has made nothing of his life except disrepute, indifference or contempt even 10 years after his divorce is his own affair. Just because a laughable minority think he's on some sort of pedestal above the possibility of failure or criticism go on deluding themselves doesn't represent how most in the real world would assess who lied about what, who profited by it, who goes on profiting by it and who goes on lying about it. That is seen by most for what it is.

As to Masako or Mette-Marit, their problems only prove the point that some princesses go on making the exact wrong choice of thinking that conforming to royal convention will make them acceptable to those traditionalists who ultimately go on controlling everything behind the scenes. The source of their misery is also their own responsibility in failing to find an identity and distinct style. If acting like the second-class wife and breeding children while remaining silent and "invisible" isn't doing it for them, that perhaps should tell a lot about what's wrong with your own notions of what royal women should be in the 21st century.

[Elspeth]

Yes it is a falsehood. Just because in your "opinion" some people confuse royalty with celebrity certainly doesn't mean royalty has become celebrity, nor even that most people don't understand the difference.

I didn't say royalty had become celebrity. Diana behaved like a celebrity with her constant publicising of her personal life for her own advantage. The press responded in kind, and an ultimately destructive feedback loop developed. Some elements of the press have continued to behave as though the private life of the royal family was a matter for public exposure; other royals haven't tended to play along.

Would she be unique in doing so if that had been the case? Actually, she never did anyway, since it was when her marriage was long since dead anyway and both she and her husband were looking for ways out of it that she ever began speaking up in her own defense.

She never did anyway because she only did it after her marriage broke down? If she did it at all, "never" isn't applicable. I didn't say she behaved like a celebrity from the very start; the fact that she started the manipulations after her marriage ran into deep trouble doesn't mean she never did it. Other members of the royal family managed to handle bad marriages without running to the press.

Aside from the fact that this is all such ancient water under the bridge people like you seem to go on being fixated on,

I'm not fixated; I'm just participating in a thread about her effect on current royalty, as are you.

I would just conclude by saying that people need to take responsibility for their own lives in the present.

Yep, they do. However, as long as there's a perceived market for Diana stuff, the publishing industry will be glad to oblige and make itself a tidy profit in the process.

The fact that the Prince of Wales has made nothing of his life except disrepute, indifference or contempt even 10 years after his divorce is his own affair.

I think it's an opinion rather than a fact. I don't have a lot of respect for him, but I don't think he's made nothing of his life.

As to Masako or Mette-Marit, their problems only prove the point that some princesses go on making the exact wrong choice of thinking that conforming to royal convention will make them acceptable to those traditionalists who ultimately go on controlling everything behind the scenes.

You're assuming they have that choice. It seems that in the Japanese case the IHA has such a tight grip on the imperial purse strings that if they say "no" to something, there may not be anything much she can do about it. In the Norwegian case, the king and the household have more influence than the crown princess; quite apart from which, if she took it in her head to ignore her responsibilities and just be a full-time mother or socialite or whatever, public opinion against the monarchy would probably increase and might eventually become a problem for the future of the monarchy itself. The position of crown princess comes with a bunch of responsibilities as well as privileges, and the person in that position has to realise that.

If acting like the second-class wife and breeding children while remaining silent and "invisible" isn't doing it for them, that perhaps should tell a lot about what's wrong with your own notions of what royal women should be in the 21st century.

What do you think Masako should have done in the last ten years, then? When she wanted to travel with her husband the IHA told her "no," and they're the ones with the money. It sounds as though that family are just puppets of the IHA - Michiko was driven to a couple of nervous breakdowns too. The crown prince finally spoke out about it, and the next thing we hear is how badly he upset his parents. When you're dealing with a bunch of powerful bureaucrats who have the ability to cut off your funding unless you toe their line, how many choices do you really have?

[Julian]

I'm just participating in a thread about her effect on current royalty

She has no effect on current royalty except in the eyes of the beholder, i.e., your impression or opinion.

Masako, Mette-Merit or anyone else make their own decisions, they make their bed and they have to sleep in it. They both seem to be every bit if not much mores "damaged" goods as the person you go on shifting the blame for their failures to. Blaming the dead for the actions of the living is ludicrous. (Yes, "my" opinion, and I'll go on stating it too).

[Elspeth]

Perhaps if you read what I wrote, it'd help a bit. I didn't say that Masako and Mette-Marit were affected by Diana. I mentioned them in response to one of your claims. You said that princesses did exactly what they wanted, and I said that according to reports, that isn't the case for those two. Nothing whatever to do with Diana.

[ulik]

one question still, if there was no Diana ever exist, would royals receive this kind of attention from public, media nowadays?

[Elizajane]

Originally posted by ulik@Jul 13th, 2004 - 6:38 am
one question still, if there was no Diana ever exist, would royals receive this kind of attention from public, media nowadays?

Ulik, I definitely agree with you regarding "all this interest" in Royals stemming from Diana, Princess of Wales. When she and Charles became engaged, a certain "fever" began to rise over "royalty". The more I read about her and her heritage, I realized the "interconnections" of nearly all of the European Royal Houses were, more than less, related to one another in some fashion or form. "This" caused me to yearn for knowledge of other royal families ... and, I'm really glad about that because I've learned so much about the others.

Once you get into "genealogical charts", you can seen how Queen Victoria carefully placed her offspring in other European Ruling Houses. The more I read about the "other royals", I became more interested in their activities and what they were all about. I really don't think I would have traveled down that path (to seek more information) if it hadn't been for "Diana, Princess of Wales".

She just opened "a huge door" for me in which I traveled into other European Royal Families. And, I've seen where she has had a tremendous effect on the fashion industry. Some might think this is sort of "trivial" ... but, for an example, someone should just look into my closet. Also, this includes "movies". I certainly think "some movies" wouldn't have been made if it weren't for her when she came on the scene.

I miss her so very much as I know that others also do. I'll never forget her as long as I live.

Elizajane

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by grecka@Jul 9th, 2004 - 7:54 pm
Exactly. I don't believe that people need elevate her to goddess status, and to be frank, I am a bit revolted by the whole celebrity worship thing. I'm merely saying let the dead rest in peace.

I agree with you.

[wymanda]

I second that!

[Julian]

You said that princesses did exactly what they wanted, and I said that according to reports, that isn't the case for those two. Nothing whatever to do with Diana.

I said that princesses do exactly what they wanted, and I still stand by that too. Your supposed examples are just your interpretations of their words and actions, nothing more. If they're nothing whatsoever to do with Diana then perhaps you shouldn't have initially made comparisons between her much overstated influences and other living princesses. It's not me you need to be telling they have nothing whatsoever to do with Diana as I'm not the one making mendacious claims about them being Diana "clones" [sic].

[Julian]

I didn't say royalty had become celebrity.

And I didn't say you did say so.

Diana behaved like a celebrity with her constant publicising of her personal life for her own advantage.

I thought you said she didn't always do this, so where does the so-called "constant' come into play, precisely? Perhaps when she became aware that her husband, his friends and his courtiers were likely to do the same to her but in more underhanded and backstabbing fashion, as is their usual style? Or perhaps when she became aware that her husband was about to do an interview with one of his favourite "writer" toadies David Dimbleby? Or perhaps when she became tired of her husband's mistress giving tittle tattle interviews to tabs for years on end, and decided others could play the same game?

The press responded in kind, and an ultimately destructive feedback loop developed. Some elements of the press have continued to behave as though the private life of the royal family was a matter for public exposure; other royals haven't tended to play along.

The press responds in kind because other royals have taken the initiative to defend their interests publicly as they see fit. Mette-Marit, Maria Teresa, CP Naruhito, have all spoken to the press. The first two did all sorts of melodramatics for the press, the latter castigated his parents' courtiers. If they choose to discuss aspects of their private lives to the media then that this is their god-given human right to present their case as they see fit. I don't see any so-called "destructive" feedback loop. Supposedly the monarchy in Britain and elsewhere is stronger nowadays, so I don't think any destructive effect was made by any of these royals being frank, quite the contrary. Most people thank God admire openness and honesty rather than deceit, backstabbing, and destructive control games by little grey men and establishment types.

[Julian]

Exactly. I don't believe that people need elevate her to goddess status, and to be frank, I am a bit revolted by the whole celebrity worship thing. I'm merely saying let the dead rest in peace.

I agree with you.

You're not merely saying let the dead rest in peace. Were you "merely" saying that and meaning it, then we should none of us discuss anyone not living in human history. All you're basically saying is that you want no discussion of those dead people you don't like. At least have the minimal integrity to say what you mean and mean what you say. Of course it won't do you any good since you live in something called a democracy and that means your only option is to start learning to ignore that which you do not like.

As far as the dead not resting in peace, the only non-rest they get is from people who project their own hateful fantasies about them. Frankly I am more than revolted by it.

[ulik]

can we agree then that before Diana there were no royals using the press (vice versa)? diana must have been a very good communicator then that she can 'used' the press. And suprisingly the press did (does) not mind at all to be used by Diana? So i think it is a symbiosis mutualism between them

[Josefine]

but can one compare different countires

in sweden the royal family has been in the papers and in tv a lot mostly since 1976 when sweden got a new queen

we have seen the swedish royal children a lot seen them growing up, there has been more paparaztis during their teenage years a nd a lot now. but victoria did start doing interviews in a early age.

every year at new year there is a special on tv seeing what the royal family has been doing during the past year

and the victoria day is very big thing and has been going on since 1979 i think before diana was ever in the picture

in sweden there has been a lot of the royal family in the media alot of talk about silvias fashion since 1976 before we heard about diana

what do others know of their countries were the royal familes in the public before diana came in the picture?

[Josefine]

i would like to hear from those that live in denmark, norway netherlands and spain is it a other news flow on your roylas now then before the diana era


and i do not want to read more about pro and con diana
keep your thoghts to the topic that you can read in the very first post in this thread

//Josefine - Admin

[CATS]

I would say the real change in the RF started long before Diana. IT started with QE the Queen mother, she started the royal walkabout. (in canada, I believe) And also helped out during ww2 with moral support. But as we all know diana gets all the credit. I know diana did alot of good.

[bigheadshirmp]

i think that Diana did a lot of charities that "let people know" thru the medias....if she did a lot but no one knows....then what's the point of encouraging people to donate money for the poor, the sick...for good causes?

one thing that Diana did is that she show her "caring, loving" characteristics to people...she really did deliver the message of warmth to people...that's why people call her the "People's Princess"

[Josefine]

i have been thinkng about this subject

i do beleive that gossip and media is much larger now and great britten has been much earlier with that kind of reporting then maybe sweden, denmark and norway

i

[xtan]

princess diana was the first princess who "broke" all the rules and sort of became the first modern princess which most of us can identify with and therefore set the standard of what we expect of a princess. hence now we kinda of see all the princesses in the world "follow" diana's style...