A New Diana?

[TLLK]

There have been many sources that stated that Diana would avidly pour over anything that was about her in the media and how she was perceived by the public was almost an obsession with her. This is where the young royals of today are quite different. They seem to be working against how they are personally perceived by the public and to keep their public spotlight on the causes and issues they are working to promote.

The last thing they want or need today is the celebrity iconic status that Diana courted. They're happy enough in their own skins and try to maintain their own private lives outside of the media circus.

Sadly I have read that Diana did pour over the articles published about her and I believe it did have affect her in a negative way. In the 21st century, I would think that all of the people who have married into a royal family since the advent of the Internet and social media have been strongly advised by the members of the families/courtiers to try and ignore the uglier side of it. However using social media/technology to bring attention to their causes is supported.

 

[Curryong]

I don't know whether that's so as far as Harry's concerned. He certainly doesn't play games with the media but he has stated a couple of times that he can't do what his father has urged on his sons, that is ignore the tabloids etc, because he said he 'wants to know what they're saying' (about him presumably, good or bad.)

I doubt that Charles reads anything on Twitter, but I'm not so sure about Harry. He's of a generation that loves discussions on it (once had a Facebook page) and apparently still communicates with various friends under another name. So I wouldn't be surprised if Harry takes a look at what people are saying, at all.

 

[Denville]

Sadly I have read that Diana did pour over the articles published about her and I believe it did have affect her in a negative way. In the 21st century, I would think that all of the people who have married into a royal fambring attention to their causes is supported.

I dont quite see what is sad about it. If I were being written about in the papers, Im sure i'd read them to see what was bieng said. OK mabye di went too far, and gradually began to believe her own popularity with teh papers was a "bigger" thing than it was, and that she was more clever at managing the press than she really was.. but I can't see that anyone would completely ignore media attention to oneself..Of course in today's wrold where there are nasty idiots who write blogs etc, and get off on being vicious about people they know nothing about, it woudl of course be sensibe to totally ignore this but that was not the situation when Di was alive.

 

[royal rob]

Senior Royals have to have a certain amount of magnetism, of 'pulling power' to bring people to their engagements. It's not much good if, apart from weddings, and Trooping the Colour, all they have as a viewing audience to a particular event are three age pensioners and some local school children who are bussed in and given flags.

In other words there has to be something to bring the public to see them. It's the same with charities and causes. There has to be a lot of public interest to bring those donations in.

Most of the above postings concentrate on Diana's machinations during the War of the Wales years when there was constant controversy because a very high profile marriage was breaking down. And sorry, that troubled marriage wasn't all Diana's fault.

People forget, because journalists and others wanted to preserve the fairy tale, it was years and years before any news of the troubled Royal marriage got into the newspapers.

In those early years Diana brought huge crowds to her engagements and enormous publicity to her causes. You see, I remember the early years when there wasn't controversy, when people flocked in their hundreds of thousands to see Diana, and she wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

I remember her first tour of Australia in 1983 when millions of people turned out to see Charles and Diana, and I believe it was mostly Diana they came to see.

In the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's first tour of Australia in 1954 there had been crowds like that, but over the years people's interest died down and the crowds became smaller. She brought those crowds back and then some when William was a baby, and there was always interest. She wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

She didn't have to have engagements in Oz tacked on to something like the Sydney Show or Australia Day when there are crowds of people out enjoying themselves anyway as happened recently.

As for the charities and causes Diana was patron of, many of them thanked their lucky stars for her. People who don't like Diana can sneer all they want but it was her charisma and star power that brought huge publicity and large increased donations to hundreds of worthy causes.

I agree excellent post


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Denville]

Senior Royals have to have a certain amount of magnetism, of 'pulling power' to bring people to their engagements. It's not much good if, apart from weddings, and Trooping the Colour, all they have as a viewing audience to a particular event are three age pensioners and some local school children who are bussed in and given flags.


P

I
In the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's first tour of Australia in 1954 there had been crowds like that, but over the years people's interest died down and the crowds became smaller. She brought those crowds back and then some when William was a baby, and there was always interest. She wasn't in touch with tabloid journalists then.

As for the charities and causes Diana was patron of, many of them thanked their lucky stars for her. People who don't like Diana can sneer all they want but it was her charisma and star power that brought huge publicity and large increased donations to hundreds of worthy causes.

I agree. Royals do need publicity and to do that, they need a certain amount of charm and an attractive personality. A royal position -just havng the title Princess or whatever -per se will attract SOME people (otherwise P Anne woudl get noone ever turning up) but it wont attract enough people.

Diana did use the press against Charles at times but as you say that was later in her marriage when she was unhappy and trying ot find a way out of the marriage.. so of course, she used what weapons she had, to strengthen her position with the public.. so that if she wanted a divorce or a separation, she would have public support and would nto be pushed out of public life... (as more or less happened with Sarah F). And Charles or his "friends" used the press against her, at the time, just they weren't so successful because he wasn't so well liked or so charming.
And mostly her use of the Press was just being who she was, being attractive and making the best of herself, not looking badly dressed or sullen (as Anne does)... and showing the best side of herself when she did a public engagement. It was no more sinister than that. As you say it DID attract publicity or the RF which they were delighted with, at the time and it attracted donations for her charities... I always think that while Di did less charity work in her last year or two, her charities should remember what she did for them, how much attention and money she raised...

 

[Denville]

I agree. I don't think there was anything 'magical' about her.

Diana was a creation of the tabloid press. A perfect princess for the MTV generation.

ays.

It certainly doesn't want or need a 'new Diana'

So why isn't there another Diana? There isn't. Fergie was a bit of a flash princess of the 80s, she's faded into near obscurity. Other young women marrying into royal families have been lauded as "new Dianas" and in a few years they are divorced Like Alexandra in Denmark.. or just accepted as "normal parts of their RF" and not a special figure.
Kate certainly isn't a new Diana, though there are attempts to make her something special by the press...She just doesn't have IT, or glamour or a work ethic...

 

[Rudolph]

Only a relatively small handful of royals make national news. If publicity and star power were the number one criteria royals like Anne and the Kents would have no charities wanting to do business with them.

I can never figure out if the people obsessed with Diana are monarchists or just celebrity watchers.

A lot of the hard core Dianaphiles I come across on social media and here on TRF seem to hate William and Catherine, can't stand Charles and only like Harry, which doesn't fit the description of a monarchist.

Even if Diana was the most magical, charismatic, hardest working royal in history, she's been dead for almost 20 years.

The Firm survived and is as popular as ever.

 

[Denville]

Only a relatively small handful of royals make national news. If publicity and star power were the number one criteria royals like Anne and the Kents would have no charities wanting to do business with them.

I
Even if Diana was the most magical, charismatic, hardest working royal in history, she's been dead for almost 20 years.

The Firm survived and is as popular as ever.[/QUOTE

I woudlnt say it is as popular as ever. It is more back ot the pre Diana level of interest, which was OK but not stellar.
I dont think anyone in the family has any great magic.
And noone said that it was ONLY charm or charisma that is a requirement. There are of course others such as willingness to work hard...

As for the Kents and Anne, they are engaged for their "royal pullng power." Not on their charm. THe Kents are pleasant but nothing speical. Anne has no charm whatsoever... But there will be people who will go and watch ANYONE no matter how dull or awful because they have HRH in front of their name...

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts and subsequent responses have been deleted. Let's not get side-tracked with talk of Charles and Diana's marriage or William, Catherine and Harry and stay on topic.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". With that I do not mean the person of Diana Frances Spencer herself. I mean the media frenzy, the dianamania, the merciless hunting by the press behaving as a pack of wolves smelling a wounded prey, the public fought separation and divorce. I am sure this has left such a deep scar that the royal family, at all costs, will prevent such a scenario happening again. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.

 

[Denville]

A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". Wagain. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.

Cuties? they are 2 small children. Nothing special. And I dont see any frenzy about them at all. we see an occasional photo, and that's enough IMO for their sake and the sake of everyone else...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Cuties? they are 2 small children. Nothing special. And I dont see any frenzy about them at all. we see an occasional photo, and that's enough IMO for their sake and the sake of everyone else...

No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.

 

[Skippy]

No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.

I would have to agree with you on that. Buying a garment or whatever because Royal X was seen with it. Inspiration is one thing, but what is happening today with these things is another.


So no, IMO there won't ever be "A New Diana". She was unique, like every individual is, and today's interests are much more cluttered. It seemed more grouped back in the day. Possibly also because of much less media outlets.

 

[TLLK]

I dont quite see what is sad about it. If I were being written about in the papers, Im sure i'd read them to see what was bieng said. OK mabye di went too far, and gradually began to believe her own popularity with teh papers was a "bigger" thing than it was, and that she was more clever at managing the press than she really was.. but I can't see that anyone would completely ignore media attention to oneself..Of course in today's wrold where there are nasty idiots who write blogs etc, and get off on being vicious about people they know nothing about, it woudl of course be sensibe to totally ignore this but that was not the situation when Di was alive.

Denville-Based upon what I have read about Diana's personality, I don't believe that it was wise for her read everything that was written about her. She seemed to have a tendency to take it very personally. I agree with you that she likely believed their version of her popularity and when she received negative press, that she had a hard time understanding why it was written. IMHO I don't think that she would have coped well with the criticism found in today's social media.

 

[TLLK]

A new Diana? The old Diana and what happened to herself and to the monarchy seems a convincing lesson for ever: no more a new "Diana". With that I do not mean the person of Diana Frances Spencer herself. I mean the media frenzy, the dianamania, the merciless hunting by the press behaving as a pack of wolves smelling a wounded prey, the public fought separation and divorce. I am sure this has left such a deep scar that the royal family, at all costs, will prevent such a scenario happening again. Not only with a "new Diana": also George and Charlotte. The madness around these two little cuties is sometimes outright scary.

I agree Duc and I doubt that any of the royal houses would want to see a situation like this one again. There were shades of this in Spain with Infanta Elena's divorce when the paps were stationed outside of the children's school hounding Froilan and Victoria.

 

[Denville]

Dd their version of her popularity and when she received negative press, that she had a hard time understanding why it was written. IMHO I don't think that she would have coped well with the criticism found in today's social media.

No I agree, in a way. But I think it woudl be inevitable. We all wonder a bit what people are saying about us and a royal new wife like Diana coudl find out by readng the papers.. so i think she was bound to. Perhaps over time she got a bit obsessed, and would get upset if there was negative coverage. But that's more to do with her lack of a happy home life..I think the more miserable she became with Charles, the mores she wanted to at least know that the public cared for her, thougt she was a nice person and doing a good job..
But I agree that in today's kind of social media, where the internet gives anonymous ways for any crackpot or just plain old nasty person to write stuff that they know nothing about really -and to indulge their hatreds, it would be incredibly foolish for a public figure to read the stuff. It really does bring out the nasty in human nature, the internet..

 

[Denville]

I would have to agree with you on that. Buying a garment or whatever because Royal X was seen with it. Inspiration is one thing, but what is happening today with these things is another.


So

? People have always bought clothes and done things becuase someone famous was seen wearing them. People bought Di's style of Laura Ashley clothes when she was a young Princess. Now I beleive that Kate's style of clothes sell out...

 

[Skippy]

? People have always bought clothes and done things becuase someone famous was seen wearing them. People bought Di's style of Laura Ashley clothes when she was a young Princess. Now I beleive that Kate's style of clothes sell out...

I know that very well. My post perhaps made it sound like it's only happening today and did not happen in the past. That's not true, of course. But what I said still stands for me, it's kind of like celebrities endorsing a product. Leads me to think "so because X or Y promotes it it's supposed to be good?" I may be a little cynic there, though.

Is it bought because it's really liked (looks cool/nice pattern/etc.) or is it only bought because he or she wore it? That's a very fine line. The first is okay, the second I doubt.

 

[Denville]

Honeslty I think that that's very trivial in itself, I mean if people buy clothes because they saw Princess Diana or little George or Vic Beckham wearing them. What does it matter? Now if people voted a particular way or say developed some viewpoint because of a celebrity, or prominent person, it might be a lot more seirous.
I knew a lady who was the nicest person, and very sensible who said that in the early 80s she asked for a "lady Diana" haircut.. - like no doubt loads of other perfectly sensible women...
And in many ways an "endorsement" from a royal or celebrity can be a very good thing. One doctor said (in Tina Browns book on Diana) that when Diana spoke about her bulimia, a mother of a child who had an eating disorder, was able to understand her child's problem and realise it was nothing to be ashamed of...

 

[Denville]

No frenzy? Little Georgie wears a blue spencer and immediately all internet shops selling that item are on tilt... I call that a frenzy indeed. I would never shop a beanie or a sweater purely because I have seen a royal with that... So indeed, the two cuties, while having no idea, are close to mania(c)s purely because they are what they are and that is kind of scary.

how are they close to maniacs?

 

[Skippy]

Honeslty I think that that's very trivial in itself, I mean if people buy clothes because they saw Princess Diana or little George or Vic Beckham wearing them. What does it matter? Now if people voted a particular way or say developed some viewpoint because of a celebrity, or prominent person, it might be a lot more seirous.
I knew a lady who was the nicest person, and very sensible who said that in the early 80s she asked for a "lady Diana" haircut.. - like no doubt loads of other perfectly sensible women...
And in many ways an "endorsement" from a royal or celebrity can be a very good thing. One doctor said (in Tina Browns book on Diana) that when Diana spoke about her bulimia, a mother of a child who had an eating disorder, was able to understand her child's problem and realise it was nothing to be ashamed of...

Call it trivial, that's okay. What does it matter? It doesn't matter anything, but it's something I wonder about sometimes and at times I find it exaggerated. What use does it have to buy something only because, say, Prince George wore it but you don't actually like the thing itself?
May be trivial, but that's where I set a question mark.

I wouldn't necessarily call your example an endorsement, which -according to me- is literally taken a product that's praised by someone famous- but rather a high profile acknowledgement of something very serious.
That can take borders away and is important.
A disease is something you didn't ask for, that's the difference.

 

[Denville]

why worry about soemthing like that? So some idiots buy things because George wears them and not because they like them?
I'm sure you know what I meant by an endorsement, in that Diana's public speaking about various issues helped to make a difference to people in trouble.. so what does it matter if some people bought clothes because she wore them? her public image, what she did and said in public had its good side and its trivial side.

 

[Osipi]

In the world of advertising, its been proven time and time again that if you want to sell something, have someone that the folks can identify with to push it. Here in the US, to reach the senior citizens, we have the "Fonz" Henry Winkler pushing something and Alex Trebek (Jeopardy) pushing something else. Jennifer Aniston pushes a couple of products. To me, it preys on people's mindset to be "just like" someone they identify with.

Diana was a woman that was very much admired, loved, followed and even in the worst of times, drew on people's heartstrings. There were a bazillion women out there that liked what they saw on her and wanted it as their own. I can well remember walking into a beauty salon in the 80s and just stating I wanted a "Diana" haircut.

The difference is that Diana wasn't pushing anything commercially. The same things that attracted women to want to style their hair like Diana, dress like Diana, do makeup like Diana also were prone to jump on the bandwagon of the causes that Diana worked to bring attention to. It was OK to be bulimic and seek help. AIDs patients were not to be feared and land mines destroyed far too many lives.

 

[Denville]

Well I'm not sure if its quite the same. I think that Diana's fashion choice were popular because she was young pretty and royal and she had mostly a good eye fro dressing well. and in the very early 80s the Laura Ashley "simple country girl" with the long skirts and the short simple hairdo, were popular..and Diana wore them all,
I wore some of them too... so she was wearing clothes that a lot of Sloaney girls and ordinary girls were wearing... She wasn't wearing "high fashion".

But her causes l Feel that she put them forward well because of other qualities. She was compassionate and warm, and if she said that there was nothing to be feared In touchng someone with AIDS people tended to feel that she was a decent good hearted young woman and very likely she was right. And with Bulimia, it was felt that she had the guts to admit she had it, so it was OK for them to admit it and seek help - when no other royal had done anything like that before.
So I don't think that a royal's fashion choices being followed is quite the same as their "causes" becoming more popular..
But IMO it is perfectly harmless. If people dress their babies like George or Charlotte because they see the clothes on them and think "Oh my baby would look good in that" that's fine. If they do so just thnking "oh these are clothes that the RF wear, even if I don't like them.." well that hardly matters a lot, does it..

 

[Kitty1224]

Will the world ever have a globally popular loved princess like Diana again?

Without being bias, I believe Diana is a modern day princess everyone knows even to this day. My own father loved her and sadden by her death. I believe that she was one of the last royal princess to capture the world's imagination and captivate the world. Will we ever have another princess in the world like Diana again or that was for its time?

 

[Missy-]

What an interesting topic, Kitty1224! I think in the early 80s the world was still fairly naive and could suspend disbelief long enough to get caught up in the fairy tale of the virginal princess and charming prince who lived happily ever after. But that naivete died with Charles' and Diana's separation and divorce.

If anyone can revive the fairy tale it's Meghan, but I don't feel she is someone who all ages will relate to. That was a huge part of Diana's charm was that she related to everyone, young and old across all boundaries. The old ladies at the beauty parlor through to the punk rockers in London all knew of her and the great majority liked if not loved her. I don't see Meghan having the charisma to appeal to the vast majority of people like Diana did.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Without being bias, I believe Diana is a modern day princess everyone knows even to this day. My own father loved her and sadden by her death. I believe that she was one of the last royal princess to capture the world's imagination and captivate the world. Will we ever have another princess in the world like Diana again or that was for its time?

I think you are mistaken regarding Diana's universality. However, without a doubt, I believe Meghan is going to be on a par (and then some) to Diana. It's not quite the same because Diana was inhabiting a fairy-tale projection, one day to be a Queen (lots of fantasy surrounded her, she was all about image, less substance). Meghan (while still with the stuff of projection around her) is not going to be a Queen but she has it in her to be quite exceptional in the role she is taking on (image combined with substance). I have no doubt. She is already world famous.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, Meghan will be famous. However, the world of Diana was the the 1980's and 1990's, a place of print media and TV, of glossy magazines that women all over the Western world would buy every week, to pore over the stories of Diana and her children and her fashions and events.

Yes, there was a bit of criticism from British journalists in the last year of Diana's life that dented her popularity, but that was forgotten when she died and there was this tremendous outpouring of grief at her death.

It wasn't an Internet world however. I find it very difficult to imagine that sort of magic on a global scale can be focused on one person today, however loved they become by the general public, when behind every computer keyboard there is a potential critic.

On Tumblr and on Twitter masses of people are ready to tear into royals and celebrities' hair, clothes, motivations, work, demeanour, past life, present lifestyle etc. For every one person praising there can be ten ready to stick knives in, metaphorically speaking, of course!

That's why I don't think it such starry eyed enchantment as Diana provoked in her lifetime will ever happen in that way again. It's a much more cynical place in lots of ways and that world has gone for ever.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yes, Meghan will be famous. However, the world of Diana was the the 1980's and 1990's, a place of print media and TV, of glossy magazines that women all over the Western world would buy every week, to pore over the stories of Diana and her children and her fashions and events.

Yes, there was a bit of criticism from British journalists in the last year of Diana's life that dented her popularity, but that was forgotten when she died and there was this tremendous outpouring of grief at her death.

It wasn't an Internet world however. I find it very difficult to imagine that sort of magic on a global scale can be focused on one person today, however loved they become by the general public, when behind every computer keyboard there is a potential critic.

(...)

That's why I don't think it such starry eyed enchantment as Diana provoked in her lifetime will ever happen in that way again. It's a much more cynical place in lots of ways and that world has gone for ever.

Not from my reading. Maybe over time since her death there has been a glossing over of Diana's critics during her life but Diana did not have a uniformly good press at all. Far from 'a bit' of negativity from the Britsh press: at one point Diana was being threatened with arrest for stalking a married man. There was a reason why Diana did the Morton Book, and the Panorama Interview. Diana was in trouble lots. It's why she was often in cahoots with the press to get good press by giving them photo-ops, playing to the drama. Seems to me it was a very cynical time back then. After all, that's what tabloids feed on: build up 'the mark' then tear them down. It's an old game.

The 'enchanted' period likely lasted a handful of years in the 80's but the gloss was wearing off by the mid to late 80's when it became clear there was something 'off' with the royal princesses: Diana and Fergie poking Ascot goers with their umbrellas; acting like goofy teenagers at a photo op on the ski slopes, reducing Charles to a school master trying to bring order. (Imagine how well any of that would go over today with Kate and/or Meghan). I could go on. There were the tapes, and the rumors flying about the Princess of Wales having amours. Read the press clippings.

Methinks the history that is there for anyone to read simply does not support that time as being 'enchanted' or that Diana provoked 'starry eyed enchantment'. JMO.

 

[Missy-]

Methinks the history that is there for anyone to read simply does not support that time as being 'enchanted' or that Diana provoked 'starry eyed enchantment'. JMO.

Take it from a contemporary of Diana's, it was a very enchanted time, made so by Diana and her persona, flawed as it was. Diana and Diana alone, no one cared about Charles who was old well before his time and totally out of touch with the common man. And therein lies the rub, Charles and his massive ego couldn't take his wife being a superstar and taking the spotlight away from him.

No, I don't think there will ever be another Diana. As Stevie Nicks wrote in the song 'Rhiannon': Once in a million years a woman like her rises.