Isn't that a
perfectly normal role anyway for any royal lady in any monarchy? All royal ladies at present and in the past have given their efforts to charities, to good causes, they have co-established schools, hospitals, orphanages, social services, housing for the poor, etc. etc. In all monarchies, all over Europe. There was nothing new in what Diana did. All her predecessors did the same. And that was simply what was expected from them.
The most notable difference was that almost all royal ladies did their charitable works in relative anonimity while in Diana's case on a certain moment her "good causes" became a major force in the War of the Waleses, in the media-war, in the spin strategy and then it became:
"Look, look at me! Look at me being like an angel for the poor, for the oppressed! Look at me, looking absolutely fabulous in my haute couture, while embracing a sick child..."
That has really put off a lot of people, the true personal commitment became blurred by the media spin of "Team Diana" and that was very damaging. On itself Diana did little different form all her predecessors and other royal ladies but it was the immense media-attention which made it looking like her doing something extraordinary, which was in fact simply the very normal role for any royal Princess.
