The Duchess of Cambridge: Will she become more popular than Diana?

[Sereta]

I don't think she will, no. Kate has too many negative labels already and too much criticism. It would take a major PR overhaul at this point.

 

[zembla]

Will Kate be more popular than Diana?

Yes, because of modern tabloid culture--it's grown far more than when Diana rose to prominence. Besides, Kate is representing something aspirational for other middle-class girls, well the ones who aspire to have that kind of life anyway. But it was a road to fame and nowadays kids want to be famous in any way they can.

Will she be as worshiped as Di? No. Will she be obsessed over? Yes. She's far more mysterious.

 

[AshleyAthena]

Let's get back on topic.......remember.....Will Kate be more popular than Diana?

I say no, there are people who just have the It Factor. Diana did have it, in spades, but Kate doesn't. I'm sure she's a nice girl and all, but she doesn't grab my attention the way Diana did.

 

[sirhon11234]

I really don't know if she will be more popular than the Princess but we shall wait and see. Perhaps she will be as popular as Diana. I don't see the it factor that Diana had in Kate maybe she'll grow into it. Kate is not that popular here in the states which surprises me.

 

[nascarlucy]

When I think about it, I don't know that much about Kate. If she marries Williams, perhaps we will get to know her better.

 

[Warren]

If she marries Williams, perhaps we will get to know her better.

Get to know her better? Maybe not, but we'll never hear the end of it. From the engagement announcement on, the circus will start and the more colour and movement up front the more the real Kate/Catherine Middleton will tend to withdraw to protect her sense of private self while learning to greet the public with the expected princess poise and practiced warmth. She'll have the Windsor minders and advisers and PR ops at every turn and she'll be careful not to let her guard down too much or let slip anything too revealing. Her copy of the Princess Handbook will highlight discretion and be quite clear that neither public exuberance nor media-tarting are approved activities in the twenty-teens.

"Will we get to know her better?" Superficially, but probably not that much. It's unlikely we'll ever know exactly what she thinks or what her attitudes to social and political issues of the day may be and she'll avoid exposing herself to detailed scrutiny. It may come to the stage where we've "known" her for many years but know nothing much about her at all. Sort of like now.

But it may not really matter. Most of us have no experience of any British Monarch other than Elizabeth II. Almost sixty years on the throne and likely quite a few more to come. And what do we know about her? Surprisingly little. It's much the same with the late and beloved Queen Mother: in the public eye for close on 80 years and the "real" person was almost as opaque behind the chiffon in 2002 as she was when she married.

In other words, we don't need to know that much, but only that which we observe or believe them to possess: a sense of duty, decency, steadfastness and kindness, with a hint of largely unseen mischievious fun and humour that adds to the personal appeal. That's probably enough for most people to feel they "know" a major royal figure. Less is more and if anything else is required, we can always project it onto them.

 

[Odette]

IMHO the question should not be if she becomes as or more popular than Diana. We should wonder if she earns the respect HM and the QM earned throughout their service to their country. William will after all become King and the question is, if Kate would be a worthwhile Queen consort. This is a lifelong career and perhaps not too many commoners can live up to its standards.

 

[Lumutqueen]

IMHO the question should not be if she becomes as or more popular than Diana. We should wonder if she earns the respect HM and the QM earned throughout their service to their country. William will after all become King and the question is, if Kate would be a worthwhile Queen consort. This is a lifelong career and perhaps not too many commoners can live up to its standards.

We shouldn't compare KM to The Queen, she isn't going to be Queen in her own right and she's not going to have to go through everything she has.
Also QM was Queen through a World War, I don't honestly think KM will be. The attitude towards the royal family when Elizabeth, The Queen Mother was alive was completely different as to how any wife of William's will be treated.

Yes some wife of William's is going to be Queen Consort and yes they should prove to the country that they are worthy of the title. But whoever they are shouldn't have to live up to how HM and QM were because they were both Queens at very different times in history.

 

[Odette]

In her own right as the Queen or as a consort as the QM, William's wife will always be compared to her predecessors. One cannot read the future and cannot say if she is going to live through another war but having said that, the QM's service extended much longer than the war years. William's wife will have big shoes to fill and she better (whoever she ends up to be) be prepared to do a stellar job. The more things change the more they stay the same and even with all those modern winds blowing through the royal houses of Europe, if royalty is to remain in the Palaces they have to continue traditions the old fashioned way.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes she will have a lot to live up to, but you can't say ask will she get the same respect as her pre-decessors because the people who gave them respect, are more than likely no longer around. KM will live in a different age, and the people who might/will give her respect are completely different from the people who were around in the Elizabeths era.
I cannot read the future, which is why I put I honestly don't think we are going to go through another war yet.

 

[contessa]

Longevity in the royal family... By the time William is king there will not be many around that even remembers Diana while she was living....Kate might not even be compared to her by then......

Who knows maybe Wlliam will put off marriage until the last possible time and marry someone years younger.....

 

[Lumutqueen]

That's not strictly right. When William becomes King there will be a lot of people around who remember who Diana was. And he is more than likely to get married first then become King, so people will certainly know who she was.

Everyone, or nearly everyone will have at least heard Princess Diana's name, and many will know who she was.

When William marrys, her name and her life will be brought out again and the press will have a field day comparing his wife to Diana for many years, when he has children people will talk about his mother and how she treated them, family resemblances etc. When he becomes King, I imagine there will be quite a bit of talk about how things would be different if his mother were around.
So people who were born after she past away will still know who she was, William and Harry will make sure there mother isn't forgotten.

 

[contessa]

Sorry, I really meant, will there be many who remember her when she was living....her wedding, her charities , etc.....

her memory will never be forgotten.....

 

[Lumutqueen]

There will be quite a lot of people IMO, who will be alive when William becomes King who will remember when Diana & Charles got married, when she had William and Harry etc.

 

[Opal]

I don't think Diana will be forgotten. I agree with you Lumutq, William and Harry will keep her memory alive for as long as they can.

 

[4Pam]

Diana is William's mother- so if someone wasn't born while she was around I'm sure they'd be curious to know who his mother is. Isn't there a memorial of Diana in London? William and Harry will keep her memory alive in one way or another.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sure there will still be people who remember her personally in say 30 years when William would be becoming King (assuming Charles only lives into his early 90s and he could possibly go for longer than that of course) but increasinly they will be fewer and fewer in number so that in 30 years time she will have been dead for 43 years and therefore the majority of people won't remember her as a living person.

People will be curious about her sure - but actual first hand remembrance - no the majority of people won't have that.

 

[sirhon11234]

Unless those who were alive during Diana's lifetime are wiped out I'm sure there will still be a majority of people who have memories of her alive and there will be a large group of others who do not.

 

[nascarlucy]

In 40 years from now, there still will be people around who remember Diana when she was alive. These people will be the minority rather than the majority.However, they will be fewer in number and youngest of them will be in their 60's and 70's age wise. A few baby boomers would still be around but they would be very old (well into their 80's and 90's).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unless those who were alive during Diana's lifetime are wiped out I'm sure there will still be a majority of people who have memories of her alive and there will be a large group of others who do not.

You do realise that about 20% of the world's population now have no memory of her alive - that is those under 15 (I am assuming that 3 year olds would have a memory of her which is a stretch).

If we take it to 5 year olds then you would have to be nearly 18 now to remember her (and based on the kids I teach who are in their final year at school - 17 - 18 years old) most of them don't have any conscious memory of her alive now - none of my 17 - 18 year olds this year or last year could remember her - and that includes remembering the funeral despite being 4 - 5 when that happened.

Two years ago one or two of them remembered the funeral but most of that class didn't. These kids are now 20 and many of them don't have a concious memory of her alive but only of her death.

In 40 years time they will be 60.

 

[nascarlucy]

The only way a young child would remember this would be if their family talk about it a lot. Or it was on the news a lot. My older brother was 4 and he vaguely remembers when JFK died. He does remember Lee Harvey Oswald being shot (this was shown on TV over and over again). This was also talked about over and over again by the media.

I do know that when Princess Diana died and after her funeral, her death was talked about quite a bit, even years after her death. It would be interesting if you went into an American classroom and asked the student body who was between the ages of 5-8 at the time, if they remember this.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Basically from what I am finding the 5 years olds no but the 8 year olds yes - so somewhere between those ages would be the cut off - they are now 18 - 23 and the 18 year olds are definitely no but the 20 year olds some and the 23 years olds yes. These are also kids with the wall to wall coverage due to TV. Interestingly according to the wikipedia article although it does state that it needs a citation 27% of the US population are under 20 - and thus falling into the category of those who wouldn't actually remember Diana as a living being - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

If this holds up world wide (and remember in less developed countries there are people who wouldn't have heard of her anyway due to their access to news sources) then over a quarter of the population already, within 13 years of her death, fall into the category of those who don't remember her. At that rate then in another 13 years about 50% of the population won't and in 26 years nearly three quarters of the population - thus clearly a majority won't remember her if William becomes king in 30 years or more.

As for JFK I was 6 when he died and it made no impression on me probably because the town where I lived didn't have TV at that time - came 2 years later - so we only had radio and newspapers (one local per week and the nationals a day after the big cities) so it simply didn't rate with me or my colleagues. I remember talking to a friend about JFKs assassination when we were teaching it together and his comments were much the same as mine - we didn't know anything about it at the time but another colleage, who was also the same age, but lived in Sydney at the time had some vague memories of black and white images on the TV of the funeral.

I think that is a valid comparison actually as I was within the age range we are talking about and JFK wasn't on the radar (or anything to do with it). The first international happening I remember was the 1968 Olympics and I was 11 that year but with 24 hour TV and multiple channels and the internet now I do thinks that kids now about far more in the world at younger ages but there is still the fact that we don't remember much stuff from when we are younger than about 4 or 5.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I like it too as it will end the whole concept of monarchy sooner rather than later. If they keep marrying commoners then they are simply becoming commoners themselves and then their whole reason for been seen as different goes.

That's a very good point.
But the royal "blood" will still run through their veins.
I don't think marrying commoners will cancel it out.

 

[4Pam]

I think it's about the heritage and your standing when your born for the royals. Just because one parent is a commoner doesn't really make the child more common. If you have royalty running in your DNA then you're a royal.

Just my two cents on te subject.

 

[Little_star]

I'm rather late to this thread so I may be expressing sentiments that have already been aired here.

IMO, the original title is quite misleading because it implies that Kate is already popular; just not as popular as Diana. I have yet to see anything that would suggest that Kate is popular or liked by the British people.

The only place Kate is "popular" is on MBs and usually then it's amongst people who aren't British (JMO). From what I can tell most Brits seem to have quite a low opinion of her, her lifestyle and her family and if she and William do marry then there will need to be a massive PR offensive to clean up her image. IMO.

Personally speaking, I have only ever come across 1 person who had a positive opinion of her and that was my hairdresser- he wanted to "cut some style into her hair" as she seemed "such a lady". His words not mine. 1 man in how many years? It's not exactly promising IMHO.

As for the suggestion that Diana's death won't be remembered by the younger generation, I agree with that to some extent. However, while you contnue to have newspapers like the Daily Express, which regularly run stories about her, then she will remain a part of the British psyche. When William does eventually marry then the press will be filled with comparisons between Diana and William's bride to be.

 

[Lady Ann]

I think that is a valid comparison actually as I was within the age range we are talking about and JFK wasn't on the radar (or anything to do with it). The first international happening I remember was the 1968 Olympics and I was 11 that year but with 24 hour TV and multiple channels and the internet now I do thinks that kids now about far more in the world at younger ages but there is still the fact that we don't remember much stuff from when we are younger than about 4 or 5.

well, my mother was five when JFK died and I can remember her telling me that they announced it in the schools and they had to stop everything.

As for me I was about Five when Diana married and I can remember everything.. Before 5 I don't remember much about worldly things but I surely remember personal stuff that happened when I was about 4.

 

[Iluvbertie]

well, my mother was five when JFK died and I can remember her telling me that they announced it in the schools and they had to stop everything.

As for me I was about Five when Diana married and I can remember everything.. Before 5 I don't remember much about worldly things but I surely remember personal stuff that happened when I was about 4.

Your mother was in the US whereas I was growing up in a very small country town in Australia. It didn't rate a mention amongst school kids of my age or even older.

Yesterday I was talking to a number of much older people - people now in the 70s and 80s and most of them only have a vague memory of it as the TV coverage here wasn't all that great across the country. A lot of the country simply didn't have any TV until the late 60s and even these people who were in their 20s and 30s didn't take much notice of Kennedy's assassination as it was half a world away and had no bearing on their lives here at that time. None could recall what they were doing when they heard but most assumed they were getting breakfast or simply getting up when they turned on the radio although some said that it would have been later in the day, after they had dropped the kids at school or arrived at work. My brother who was 10 at the time also told me that he had no memory of the event at all and has no memory of anyone talking about it or anything like that. His teachers didn't mention it.

Almost universal TV coverage certainly makes it easier to remember these things.

 

[Blackadder]

Sure there will still be people who remember her personally in say 30 years when William would be becoming King (assuming Charles only lives into his early 90s and he could possibly go for longer than that of course) but increasinly they will be fewer and fewer in number so that in 30 years time she will have been dead for 43 years and therefore the majority of people won't remember her as a living person.

People will be curious about her sure - but actual first hand remembrance - no the majority of people won't have that.

Quite right, Iluvbertie. Even nowadays, apart from her fans, not many people are talking about her anymore. Instant world.

 

[Sonjapearl]

The only place Kate is "popular" is on MBs and usually then it's amongst people who aren't British (JMO). From what I can tell most Brits seem to have quite a low opinion of her, her lifestyle and her family and if she and William do marry then there will need to be a massive PR offensive to clean up her image. IMO.

What are "MBs"? Is that a British slang or am I out of touch with Internet abbreviations?

 

[Russophile]

What are "MBs"? Is that a British slang or am I out of touch with Internet abbreviations?

Looks like Monarchy Boards to Moi. However! I CAN be wrong!