Diana's legacy : What is left or what will be left ?

[sirhon11234]

Thanks Georgia. :)

Duchess, I believe by the mid 90s especially after the Princess of Wales passed on, you would find Royalty in the entertainment section with celebrities.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Thanks Georgia. :)

Duchess, I believe by the mid 90s especially after the Princess of Wales passed on, you would find Royalty in the entertainment section with celebrities.

I wonder if in some part this isn't a response to BP's attempt to limit the number of people considered to be in the "Royal Family" (or working
royals).

If these people with titles aren't working royals, what are they other than celebrities?

But I am rather distressed by the trivialization of the royals. We probably can't expect better from Beatrice, Eugenie and the rest if they're just lumped in with the likes of Paris Hilton and Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag...

[sthreats]

I think that you can expect better from the young royals. I am sure that they were raised correctly and know how to behave. But like most young people they think that pushing the envelope is the way to show independence. They will "hopefully" grow up without too many lasting scars. I don't think this has anything to do with be classified as "stars".

Although many emphasize how young Diana was when she married and not ready for her role, in fact she showed much more maturity and poise when dealing with the public in her early 20's than todays young royals and celebs.

[iowabelle]

I think it's easier for them to regard themselves as celebrities than to find a role for themselves, now that the "working royal" label has been curtailed for most of them.

But getting back to the Diana theme of this thread, I think that as the trivialization occurs, the benefits of Diana's works will be largely forgotten.

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, she was certainly gracious in public. To go from a private, fairly insulated life to one where she was watched by the whole world must have been very, very strange. What's remarkable is that she was able to hold it together in public for so long.

Originally Posted by sthreats

Although many emphasize how young Diana was when she married and not ready for her role, in fact she showed much more maturity and poise when dealing with the public in her early 20's than todays young royals and celebs.

[Grace Angel]

I thunk royals being regarded as celebrities is certainly a process that Diana helped along, although it likely would have happened anyway, given how much emphasis is put on celebrity culture these days.

[Mermaid1962]

There was always an element of celebrity about Royalty, in the sense that they have been 'celebrated persons.' I think, for example, that Princess Margaret was more of our present idea of a celebrity than the Queen was/is. Perhaps an argument could be made that Princess Margaret was the first real celebrity Royal because of her heartbreak and scandals. She would have shown up in the gossip magazines before Diana was ever on the scene. With PEOPLE magazine showing up in the 70s, I think that really started a whole new age of celebrity-watching. Then US magazine came out and now we have racks filled with magazines about people-watching. Diana was also a joy to look at, even before the media started delving into her personal life and she began dishing it out herself.

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

I thunk royals being regarded as celebrities is certainly a process that Diana helped along, although it likely would have happened anyway, given how much emphasis is put on celebrity culture these days.

[Grace Angel]

I agree with you about Princess Margaret. Some members of the RF have over the years had qualities that lend themselves more to being regarded as a celebrity than others. So Diana did indeed follow in Princess Margaret's foot steps a bit in the sense she was regarded as a celebrity, although of course her being regarded as a celebrity became a much bigger thing than Princess Margaret's celebrity ever was. The Queen is much too traditional to ever be regarded as a celebrity, whereas Princess Margaret was more modern.

[Mermaid1962]

I think that the late Duke and Duchess of Kent would perhaps fit the "celebrity" mold as well. They were a very glamorous couple, even though not much was known in public about their private lives. When I look at pictures of them, I'm struck by how much they both look like movie stars from the 30s.

National Portrait Gallery - Large Image NPG P870(10); Prince George, Duke of Kent and Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent

So Royal glamour and celebrity didn't start with Diana; but it certainly exploded with her because people found her fascinating. The press encouraged that fascination as well because she made money for them, and then she learned to use the press to her own advantage.

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

I agree with you about Princess Margaret. Some members of the RF have over the years had qualities that lend themselves more to being regarded as a celebrity than others. So Diana did indeed follow in Princess Margaret's foot steps a bit in the sense she was regarded as a celebrity, although of course her being regarded as a celebrity became a much bigger thing than Princess Margaret's celebrity ever was. The Queen is much too traditional to ever be regarded as a celebrity, whereas Princess Margaret was more modern.

[Grace Angel]

You are right about Marina of Kent and her husband etc. There's that old line of argument that you shouldn't " let daylight in on the magic" of the British throne, which some have seen as happening as royals became more regarded as celebrities. Certainly, as Diana discovered the press could be both good and bad.

[iowabelle]

I was amazed to go to post #368 and click on the National Portrait Gallery, and see images of Diana I didn't recognize.

About #369--there certainly would have been a lot to say about the late Duke of Kent, if not Marina.

[Grace Angel]

That's true- much came out about him after his death. Diana lived in the modern age where it was harder to keep private things private for royals, not that Diana wanted to in all cases, because she did use the press to get what she wanted said out there.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

You know I just wanted to add that I kinda don't know why Diana did alot of the things she did was she hurt, angry was she doing it for attention but I wish she had been around longer I would have loved to seen what she would have been like now at a much wiser age.

ghost_night, you bring an interesting question about Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it was all three things that you list about why she did the things she did.

But I really feel fame bit her and she was never the same. Once fame gets into a person they usually are not the same.

I too would love to see her at a mature 48. She would be much wiser now.

[sirhon11234]

The Princess had much too much fame much too early imo.

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I agree completely. I think that after the long, hard slog of the 70s--Vietnam, the Energy Crisis, the trouble in Iran, the bad economy, etc.--people in different parts of the world were ready for a sweet-faced, well-spoken, pretty girl who seemed to be perfect princess material. She was such a refreshing sight on our t.v. screens, and I think that's in part why she got so much exposure. She seemed to step out of a more innocent time, and we lapped it up. Whatever she did in those early years, she did very well; and we didn't know the personal cost she was carrying because she was usually smiling. She was like an ingenue movie star in a way, but she was also set to be the Queen Consort. So there was glamour on the one hand, and the romance of royalty on the other. It was a very potent combination that eventually exploded.

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

The Princess had much too much fame much too early imo.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by georgiea

ghost_night, you bring an interesting question about Diana, Princess of Wales. I think it was all three things that you list about why she did the things she did.

But I really feel fame bit her and she was never the same. Once fame gets into a person they usually are not the same.

I too would love to see her at a mature 48. She would be much wiser now.

As I see it we have a person that was in the press and n the public eye 24/7.. more so than her mother in law

From the get go.. all eyes were on Shy Di as the fiancee.. then the world watced the "fairy tale" wedding. The press made a superstar out of one of the royal family. in ther panorama interview.. she used the media as they used her.

Just think.. if it wasn't for Diana and Sarah... back then.. we'd still be wondering just what is in HM's handbag.

Diana did give color and attention to the BRF and I do think in a way moderinzed the way we see them but when it comes down to it alll. HM will never be a front page glossy on a fashion magazine.. she doesn't need to. Prince Charles will and does still talk to his plants and wow.. the world is starting to go green too..

Diana's role was her own. as is mine. If in my life I leave a good impression on one person, its been a good life. She left millions with impresions.


Thanks for letting me rant


Osipi

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Osipi

and I do think in a way moderinzed the way we see them but when it comes down to it alll.

And there in lies the problem to many people. She took the majesty away from the Royal Family and made them common or garden celebrities.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

And there in lies the problem to many people. She took the majesty away from the Royal Family and made them common or garden celebrities.

I totally agree with you on that. I think also it has shown the world the inherent dangers of what a persistant media can do. I think this is one reason why William and Kate keep such low profiles. Perhaps the media frenzy over Diana, Princess of Wales was a good thing in the long run... lessons were learned the hard way.

[Grace Angel]

Originally Posted by Osipi

As I see it we have a person that was in the press and n the public eye 24/7.. more so than her mother in law

From the get go.. all eyes were on Shy Di as the fiancee.. then the world watced the "fairy tale" wedding. The press made a superstar out of one of the royal family. in ther panorama interview.. she used the media as they used her.

Just think.. if it wasn't for Diana and Sarah... back then.. we'd still be wondering just what is in HM's handbag.

Diana did give color and attention to the BRF and I do think in a way moderinzed the way we see them but when it comes down to it alll. HM will never be a front page glossy on a fashion magazine.. she doesn't need to. Prince Charles will and does still talk to his plants and wow.. the world is starting to go green too..

Diana's role was her own. as is mine. If in my life I leave a good impression on one person, its been a good life. She left millions with impresions.


Thanks for letting me rant


Osipi

I agree that the Queen and Prince Charles aren't the type to need to be on the cover of a glossy magazine. Diana combined royalty and celebrity uniquelly, but her brand of royalty couldn't ever really be that of the RF, at least not that generation.

[Catherine Helvin]

I always loved Diana right from the start. I don't think, even for one minute, that she destroyed the Royal Family, but rather laid down a blueprint for change that may have saved them. She found them too remote, too self-absorbed, too aware of their status and too insensitive to the plight of others to fit in with her very modern mindset.

The other royals just didn't know how to deal with this superstar.

Mind you, Diana did make mistakes and air a lot of dirty washing under the media spotlight but by and large we forgave her.