A New Diana?

[Lee-Z]

Not going into discussion whether any royal is really *globally* loved (which to me means all countries on the globe, not just the western ones), but i think there are only very few monarchies that are actually known by the general public in lot's of countries (outside their own) and in the few there are imo there will only be very very few people who actually have that certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes their appeal extend their royal life as it is.

I could name only three in the past: Sissi (empress of Austria), P.Grace of Monaco and Diana, P.of Wales (okay, and maybe K.Ludwig II of Bavaria)

So i don't expect a new person to come alomg soon, but in a 100 years, if monarchies still exist, imo there could certainly be a new one...if there can be 3 in the past, someday there will be a 4th

 

[Osipi]

You are not seriously comparing Diana to Hitler, are you ? That comment was way out of line.

As for Diana working "for her greater glory", I think that is also unfair. What "glory" could she have gained from embracing humanitarian causes that at the time were off-limits for royals ? I believe she genuinely cared about those issues and was not doing it for self-reward.

If you mean though that Diana had her own agenda within the RF, I'd say everybody does to a certain extent. Camilla certainly has her agenda too, as does Kate, but Kate is far more discreet and more skillful in pursuing it than Diana was. If we were to believe the fictional play "Charles III", we would probably be led to think that Kate is actually a modern version of Lady Macbeth ! Thankfully, it is just fiction.

Sorry if it seemed I was comparing Diana to Hitler. That was not my intent. They just were charismatic personalities and each used that personality in different ways.

Diana did have that charisma that drew people to her and for the most part, it was in a positive manner. She was naturally empathetic, had that ability to make a person feel that while talking to Diana, that person was the only one in the room and definitely had some really good people skills.

With the way things were in the 80s and 90s, people like myself only saw Diana through what was printed in magazines and supermarket checkout tabloids. I really had no idea of the "real" Diana until I joined here in 2008.

Now we live in the age of the burp heard around the world in seconds and everything and anything is chronicled in so many different places with so many different opinions and viewpoints. I can't begin to think of how the War of the Wales would be covered today.

 

[Kitty1224]

Not going into discussion whether any royal is really *globally* loved (which to me means all countries on the globe, not just the western ones), but i think there are only very few monarchies that are actually known by the general public in lot's of countries (outside their own) and in the few there are imo there will only be very very few people who actually have that certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes their appeal extend their royal life as it is.

I could name only three in the past: Sissi (empress of Austria), P.Grace of Monaco and Diana, P.of Wales (okay, and maybe K.Ludwig II of Bavaria)

So i don't expect a new person to come alomg soon, but in a 100 years, if monarchies still exist, imo there could certainly be a new one...if there can be 3 in the past, someday there will be a 4th

I agree with the je ne sais quoi. Not everyone has it. I personally think besides The Queen, no one in the BRF has that certain something about them that extends their royal life. Did Princess Grace really have it?

 

[wyevale]

She was working for the greater glory of Diana.

ABSOTIVELY !

For what it's worth I hope NO-ONE is subjected to that level of hysteria and appalling scrutiny EVER again.. once was [more than] enough imo.

 

[Kitty1224]

You are not seriously comparing Diana to Hitler, are you ? That comment was way out of line.

As for Diana working "for her greater glory", I think that is also unfair. What "glory" could she have gained from embracing humanitarian causes that at the time were off-limits for royals ? I believe she genuinely cared about those issues and was not doing it for self-reward.

If you mean though that Diana had her own agenda within the RF, I'd say everybody does to a certain extent. Camilla certainly has her agenda too, as does Kate, but Kate is far more discreet and more skillful in pursuing it than Diana was. If we were to believe the fictional play "Charles III", we would probably be led to think that Kate is actually a modern version of Lady Macbeth ! Thankfully, it is just fiction.

I agree she generally cared about others. My own father loved her and I asked why and he said her humantarian work.

 

[Lee-Z]

I agree with the je ne sais quoi. Not everyone has it. I personally think besides The Queen, no one in the BRF has that certain something about them that extends their royal life. Did Princess Grace really have it?

Oh yes, for some people P.Grace certainly had *it*, i think there is another thread on these forums that talks about Grace's and Diana's appeal to a wider audience, i just can't seem to find it at the moment...
(and just like P.Grace might not remembered by you, not everybody remembers P.Diana, but that doesn't refute the point that their fame transcendex their job-description)

Of QEII, who is by far my favorite royal ever, i'm not so sure whether she has the "je ne sais quoi" or whether it's the longetivity of seeing her on photos etc that makes her the imo most recognized of the living royals around the world... imo for instance P.Margaret had more *it* potential than her sister in the past...


Edited to add
Maybe i was thinking of this thread "A new Diana"
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/a-new-diana-4632.html

 

[Kitty1224]

Oh yes, for some people P.Grace certainly had *it*, i think there is another thread on these forums that talks about Grace's and Diana's appeal to a wider audience, i just can't seem to find it at the moment...
(and just like P.Grace might not remembered by you, not everybody remembers P.Diana, but that doesn't refute the point that their fame transcendex their job-description)

Of QEII, who is by far my favorite royal ever, i'm not so sure whether she has the "je ne sais quoi" or whether it's the longetivity of seeing her on photos etc that makes her the imo most recognized of the living royals around the world... imo for instance P.Margaret had more *it* potential than her sister in the past...


Edited to add
Maybe i was thinking of this thread "A new Diana"
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/a-new-diana-4632.html

I agree with you about Grace. Even as a film star she had something that made us captivated by her. I don’t think it’s a bad thing when certain royals transcends their title or job description. I believe it is a good thing if used in a good way! But I don’t think we will see any royals now maybe in the future that will have that certain something. I think Princess Estelle will in the future.

 

[Kitty1224]

You know Diana’s influence is amazing when other royal woman from other royal houses or either compared to Diana or been influenced by her. Her influence is still there. She was the first!

 

[Lee-Z]

Of the current royal children i find it hard to tell who will have the *it* and who will actually act on it as well (not everyone's ambition will be to transcend).

Maybe in 30 or 40 years time we'll be making threads like this about P.Charlotte of GB or P.Gabriella of Monaco or who knows who (a future P.Henrietta-Meghan jr of GB?)

I long thought that P.Charlene of Monaco would have it-potential, but her ambition seems to lie in other areas

 

[Kitty1224]

I think its unfair that some assume that other woman from other royal houses can't be globally loved like Diana. Grace married into a small principality that not alot of people knew about and because of her people know Monaco.

 

[jacqui24]

I think its unfair that some assume that other woman from other royal houses can't be globally loved like Diana. Grace married into a small principality that not alot of people knew about and because of her people know Monaco.

Grace also came from Hollywood. Her fame prior to marriage gave Monaco a boost internationally far more than if Rainier had married someone from France or Monaco.

And yes, we Americans become enamored with this Princess thing because we don't have it here.

 

[Osipi]

I truly believe that every time that a British royal woman is compared to Diana today in the media is because the media wants to keep that "cash cow" alive. Diana sells. Whether it be her public works or her screwed up private life and affairs, Diana sells.

No royal woman today would ever aspire to be a carbon copy of Diana. One Diana in the British royal family was more than enough.

 

[Osipi]

There is currently someone that, IMO, has that *it* factor. That charisma when out and about with the people. Harry. He's got his mother's people skills and is very adept at interacting and connecting with people.

I melt every time I see this man with kids. He gets down to their level and connects.

 

[Blog Real]

Mary from Denmark is very popular in Denmark but also have fans in other countries. The same can be said of Maxima or even of Letizia.
I think nowadays it is very difficult to be very popular all over the world than in the days of Diana or Grace. Even so we have very popular royalty.

I do not think any royalty woman wants to be a Diana 2. Kate, Meghan and the women of the other real houses want to have their own personality and go their own way.
But the press will be trying to get a new Diana.

“So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.” it’s possble but it takes one special gifted human being.
Also yes I believe she would have had the same impact. Diana was special.

Would Diana have had the same impact if she were a Princess of Luxembourg or Liechtesntein?

 

[moby]

I don't think there will ever be a figure like Diana ever again, no. She was charismatic, did things people felt were different from what the rest of the BRF did, had so much drama around her...add to that the times she lived in, the kind of media there was and well, those combination of factors just won't happen again. It was a different time.

I think people from Europe and the US could have had a more nuanced view of her, as some people in this thread have demonstrated. However, in the early 90s, growing up in the middle of nowhere in Asia, there was absolutely no other royal people around me knew of other than Princess Diana. She was just ridiculously famous. If you showed these same people photos of QEII, they would vaguely recall that the UK has a queen but they probably wouldn't know her relationship to Princess Di.

It's like you have Beyonce or Taylor Swift these days, no matter how famous, they won't be as famous as Michael Jackson was during his time. Princess Di was as famous as MJ in those days. It was that level.

 

[Kitty1224]

I truly believe that every time that a British royal woman is compared to Diana today in the media is because the media wants to keep that "cash cow" alive. Diana sells. Whether it be her public works or her screwed up private life and affairs, Diana sells.

No royal woman today would ever aspire to be a carbon copy of Diana. One Diana in the British royal family was more than enough.

Of course they don’t want to aspire to be her but she is still influential in royal houses today. Her humanitarian work and her royal duties.

 

[Kitty1224]

I don't think there will ever be a figure like Diana ever again, no. She was charismatic, did things people felt were different from what the rest of the BRF did, had so much drama around her...add to that the times she lived in, the kind of media there was and well, those combination of factors just won't happen again. It was a different time.

I think people from Europe and the US could have had a more nuanced view of her, as some people in this thread have demonstrated. However, in the early 90s, growing up in the middle of nowhere in Asia, there was absolutely no other royal people around me knew of other than Princess Diana. She was just ridiculously famous. If you showed these same people photos of QEII, they would vaguely recall that the UK has a queen but they probably wouldn't know her relationship to Princess Di.

It's like you have Beyonce or Taylor Swift these days, no matter how famous, they won't be as famous as Michael Jackson was during his time. Princess Di was as famous as MJ in those days. It was that level.

Oh I see your point. Diana Level of fame is something that is rare like MJ’s. It’s like someone to be on Diana’s level they would have to be globally significant even if there were so many news around cause of social media. Yeah that’s hard. Can it be done?
Mine you Diana was so loved that even in France they called her the Queen of Paris. Warmly called her Lady D. Everyone from all over the world Kings, royals, heads of states, US presidents, foreign leaders, politicians all wanted to meet her. It wasn’t the other way around. She had a presence that was uniquely Diana. She was charming great diplomat, her beauty stunned people. Who will ever get to that level?

 

[Kitty1224]

I do not think any royalty woman wants to be a Diana 2. Kate, Meghan and the women of the other real houses want to have their own personality and go their own way.
But the press will be trying to get a new Diana.

I think they meant the new Diana in terms of having an IT factor. Something special about them. I don’t see it with Kate or Markle.

 

[Rudolph]

In one of the many interviews surrounding the Queen’s diamond jubilee, William talked about his grandmother’s devotion to duty etc, and one thing he said was the Queen is no fan of ‘celebrity’.

I don’t think we’ll see another royal with Diana’s ‘global appeal’ and that’s probably a good thing imo.

 

[Muhler]

Mary from Denmark is very popular in Denmark but also have fans in other countries. The same can be said of Maxima or even of Letizia.
I think nowadays it is very difficult to be very popular all over the world than in the days of Diana or Grace. Even so we have very popular royalty.

Indeed, because there will be a little chance of a similar focused press coverage, which at the same time constitute basically the only international news source for the majority of people on this planet.
The Internet in particular changed all that.

I can sit here in DK and be a fanatical fan of a Cambodian royal and with the technical aides available today, Google translate, access to local news, personal contacts online and so on, I can follow that royal very well if I really want to.

In other words today it's possible to select among the royals we for whatever reason wish to follow. That option simply wasn't there when Diana was still a princess.

So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.
The only royals who at present has a chance of getting near that coverage are the primary members of the BRF.
But time has changed. A royal forum like this means that even if you are only moderately interested in royalty, you now have access to hard info about different contexts of royalty, depending on nationality, culture, traditions and so on and so on. In other words, the BRF no longer have a monopoly on how royalty works for those interested. And that means that you today can pick among the current royals who is interesting and who is not, depending on your personal preferences.
Because Diana got international coverage, she did international stuff, gaining her an even wider global audience.
The real question here is: Would Diana have had nearly the same impact, also on a more personal level, had she been married to say the Belgian heir?
Another big question is: If Diana had married Charles in 2005, presuming she and Charles were the same age as they were back in 1981, how would she have fared in today's world?
How would she be compared to other royal princesses in 2005? Some of them have turned out to be pretty formidable! I believe that while Diana undeniably did have good people skills and a natural flair for PR, she also very much grew in her role.
And we can debate whether it would ultimately have been her downfall had she not died and become a legend.

 

[Mbruno]

Not going into discussion whether any royal is really *globally* loved (which to me means all countries on the globe, not just the western ones), but i think there are only very few monarchies that are actually known by the general public in lot's of countries (outside their own) and in the few there are imo there will only be very very few people who actually have that certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes their appeal extend their royal life as it is.

What I meant when I compared the British royals to other royal families is that they seem to get worldwide coverage, i.e. not only in Europe, but also in Australia, Africa, Asia (Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Far East), and the Americas. That is in part due to the reach of the old British Empire and in part because most international media outlets with a global reach are English-speaking and based either in the US or the UK.

Other royal families tend to get a more "regionalized" coverage. As I said, for example, the Spanish RF of course in Spain/Portugal, but also in Latin America, or the Swedes in Scandinavia, Germany and the Baltic countries. They don't make the regular news though for example in India, China, Africa, or the US as the British royals often do, except perhaps in very specific publications that routinely cover "celebrities".

Are there princesses outside the UK who could potentially be "new Dianas" in terms of popular appeal ? Probably yes, but they are relatively unknown outside their own countries or areas of influence.

 

[Missy-]

Of course they don’t want to aspire to be her but she is still influential in royal houses today. Her humanitarian work and her royal duties.

Absolutely, Kitty!
Does anyone here remember how influential Diana was on Masako of Japan, that she mentored her in how to work with the cards she was dealt? And during the Diana years she played her role very well IMO. It was only after Diana died that Masako fell apart. Now that Maxima is on the scene Masako has another royal woman to talk to and seems to be blooming again, happily!

And no, I wouldn't wish Diana's level of fame on anyone, that was what killed her in the end. She mishandled the press in a big way, and it cost her dearly in her later years, sadly. But that first decade was pretty darn magical imo!

 

[Osipi]

Of course they don’t want to aspire to be her but she is still influential in royal houses today. Her humanitarian work and her royal duties.

Diana, in the beginning was one problematic princess when it came to doing the duties. As she grew in her role and gained confidence and was able to cherry pick causes that she wanted to patronage, by that time, she was working mostly as a "lone wolf" and wasn't really held in the highest regard by the House of Windsor.

Her humanitarian work was good but, I think, over publicized because frankly, anything to do with Diana made the front pages of the media and Diana worked hard to ensure that it did and not totally out of altruistic reasons either. She played the press. She manipulated the press and planned strategies on how to make the front page at times to detract from other things going on.

I don't discredit her humanitarian work at all but I do believe that for Diana, the public accolades and adoration she received served to make up for the lack of these things in her private life.

I don't think any royal today aspires to have that *it* factor and work more to be seen as part of the royal "team" than to have their own pedestals and halos and people fawning at their feet. They don't need their ego stroked that way.

 

[Kitty1224]

Absolutely, Kitty!
Does anyone here remember how influential Diana was on Masako of Japan, that she mentored her in how to work with the cards she was dealt? And during the Diana years she played her role very well IMO. It was only after Diana died that Masako fell apart. Now that Maxima is on the scene Masako has another royal woman to talk to and seems to be blooming again, happily!

And no, I wouldn't wish Diana's level of fame on anyone, that was what killed her in the end. She mishandled the press in a big way, and it cost her dearly in her later years, sadly. But that first decade was pretty darn magical imo!

I will say my favorite year for Diana was 1988-1989. She bloomed and the Elvis dress and she looked like a princess and her aura. Though i did like her a lot after her separation. But France is a hard bunch and they fell head over heels with Diana!

 

[Kitty1224]

Diana, in the beginning was one problematic princess when it came to doing the duties. As she grew in her role and gained confidence and was able to cherry pick causes that she wanted to patronage, by that time, she was working mostly as a "lone wolf" and wasn't really held in the highest regard by the House of Windsor.

Her humanitarian work was good but, I think, over publicized because frankly, anything to do with Diana made the front pages of the media and Diana worked hard to ensure that it did and not totally out of altruistic reasons either. She played the press. She manipulated the press and planned strategies on how to make the front page at times to detract from other things going on.

I don't discredit her humanitarian work at all but I do believe that for Diana, the public accolades and adoration she received served to make up for the lack of these things in her private life.

I don't think any royal today aspires to have that *it* factor and work more to be seen as part of the royal "team" than to have their own pedestals and halos and people fawning at their feet. They don't need their ego stroked that way.

What’s wrong with dedicating her life to humanitarian work if her life was miserable? The fact that she can bring smiles to peoples faces is good.

 

[Kitty1224]

Indeed, because there will be a little chance of a similar focused press coverage, which at the same time constitute basically the only international news source for the majority of people on this planet.
The Internet in particular changed all that.

I can sit here in DK and be a fanatical fan of a Cambodian royal and with the technical aides available today, Google translate, access to local news, personal contacts online and so on, I can follow that royal very well if I really want to.

In other words today it's possible to select among the royals we for whatever reason wish to follow. That option simply wasn't there when Diana was still a princess.

So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.
The only royals who at present has a chance of getting near that coverage are the primary members of the BRF.
But time has changed. A royal forum like this means that even if you are only moderately interested in royalty, you now have access to hard info about different contexts of royalty, depending on nationality, culture, traditions and so on and so on. In other words, the BRF no longer have a monopoly on how royalty works for those interested. And that means that you today can pick among the current royals who is interesting and who is not, depending on your personal preferences.
Because Diana got international coverage, she did international stuff, gaining her an even wider global audience.
The real question here is: Would Diana have had nearly the same impact, also on a more personal level, had she been married to say the Belgian heir?
Another big question is: If Diana had married Charles in 2005, presuming she and Charles were the same age as they were back in 1981, how would she have fared in today's world?
How would she be compared to other royal princesses in 2005? Some of them have turned out to be pretty formidable! I believe that while Diana undeniably did have good people skills and a natural flair for PR, she also very much grew in her role.
And we can debate whether it would ultimately have been her downfall had she not died and become a legend.

“So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.” it’s possble but it takes one special gifted human being.
Also yes I believe she would have had the same impact. Diana was special.

 

[Osipi]

What’s wrong with dedicating her life to humanitarian work if her life was miserable? The fact that she can bring smiles to peoples faces is good.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. She was fantastic when it came to drawing attention to areas that sorely needed attention like AIDS (my praise can't be higher for Diana for backing this) and land mines.

I think too, that people saw Diana from two different angles. On one hand, you had the glamorous, much admired and photogenic "Princess" Diana (which the majority of everyday people still call her today) and on the other hand, you have the real life Diana, Princess of Wales with warts and all. Not too many people ever got beyond seeing the fairy tale "princess" persona of Diana and that is why she's hailed as a iconic legend more so than for what she was really like as a person.

 

[Osipi]

“So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.” it’s possble but it takes one special gifted human being.
Also yes I believe she would have had the same impact. Diana was special.

Diana was more publicized, photographed more and written about but there are just as many "special" people today as there were in Diana's time. "Special" is not measured by global saturation in the media. Diana was a human being with her talents and her flaws and her accomplishments and her failures. She had good character traits and bad character traits and even some horrible traits. In other words, she wasn't a glorified saint to be emulated and admired anymore than she was a vindicative, manipulating woman that wanted things her way.

She was human.

 

[Kitty1224]

Diana was more publicized, photographed more and written about but there are just as many "special" people today as there were in Diana's time. "Special" is not measured by global saturation in the media. Diana was a human being with her talents and her flaws and her accomplishments and her failures. She had good character traits and bad character traits and even some horrible traits. In other words, she wasn't a glorified saint to be emulated and admired anymore than she was a vindicative, manipulating woman that wanted things her way.

She was human.

She was chosen to use her gifts on a global scale. I get it you dislike her for some reason but majority loved her and she was special. People who have met her have always said she had something about her that was different.

 

[Kitty1224]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. She was fantastic when it came to drawing attention to areas that sorely needed attention like AIDS (my praise can't be higher for Diana for backing this) and land mines.

I think too, that people saw Diana from two different angles. On one hand, you had the glamorous, much admired and photogenic "Princess" Diana (which the majority of everyday people still call her today) and on the other hand, you have the real life Diana, Princess of Wales with warts and all. Not too many people ever got beyond seeing the fairy tale "princess" persona of Diana and that is why she's hailed as a iconic legend more so than for what she was really like as a person.

Well people sometimes do not like to think about her real life problems. Sucks to say but a lot look to Diana to escape into fantasy and that in part was the image the media public and Diana made. Who cares if they still call her "Princess" Diana. I call her that because all though she wasn't a born princess and royal she seemed more royals than the actual royals. Princess Diana!!!