A New Diana?

[Kitty1224]

Needless to say neither do I. Different times, very different people.

Exactly! Also I just feel like they don’t have that special something Diana had. Harry has charisma but that’s just it.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm not sure what you mean by the Diana that Meghan will try to be. Meghan is hardly trying to eclipse her husband to be or get into a competition with the rest of the family. She fell in love with a man, and it just happens that he can offer her a platform to do what she was passionate about even before she met him, which is philanthropy. I think the BRF is lucky that Harry found someone so willing to take on the job aspect as well. And clearly, they've been very pleased with her abilities as they've given her more serious events before she's even married. Can we use someone else that matched Diana's ability to do good for the less fortunate? Absolutely. It's the other parts of Diana that became a problem for the royal family, and I'm not seeing that here.

According to Andrew Morton , Meghan has always admired Diana and sees her as a "role model". A maid of honor from her first wedding is also quoted as saying that Meghan wants to be "Princess Diana 2.0" .

My point was that she may not be as discreet or eager to keep a low profile as Kate. She may see being a royal as a platform for her own causes and might be willing to use it.

 

[Terri Terri]

Andrew Morton!! Really????!!!! He is absolutely NOT any type of credible source on who Meghan Markle is! Neither is the ex best friend who has sold Meghan out left, right and centre to the trash tabloids for money!!!!

Meghan comes into the royal family with her own background in philanthropy. She didn't need to become a member of the BRF to do charity work. And it is that very backgroud that Prince Harry fell in love with and why Meghan is seen as such a valuable part of the team that she has been allowed to do so many official engagements pre-marriage...more than any royal fiance before her.

And to be bluntly honest...I loved Diana back in the day and was and still is one of her greatest fans, but what woman in her right mind would want the life that Diana had?!!!.She was married to a man who didn't love her truly and died at 36! Who would want that for all the fame and adoration that she had!!!

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What about Meghan would make one suppose that she would want to be a 'new Diana'? A puzzle as nothing about Meghan references Diana as far as I can see. Very different women.

I agree that nothing about Meghan makes me think she wants to be Diana. LMAO at using Andrew Morton as a source of information; that just screams of desperation to make Meghan into something she is not.

 

[jacqui24]

According to Andrew Morton , Meghan has always admired Diana and sees her as a "role model". A maid of honor from her first wedding is also quoted as saying that Meghan wants to be "Princess Diana 2.0" .

My point was that she may not be as discreet or eager to keep a low profile as Kate. She may see being a royal as a platform for her own causes and might be willing to use it.

Plenty of people admired Diana for the charity work she did like a lot of us, but that hardly makes her want to be like Diana. Meghan has participated in charity even when she was a child, so it wouldn't surprise that she'd find Diana's work inspiring. Her teachers from school have spoken out about how Meghan always took a keen interest in social justice courses they had, and actually went to one to ask for advice she was so scared to go back to Skid Row. She wanted to go back to help the soup kitchen, but she was scared of the area, which isn't far fetched for a young teenager.

As for her former best friend, she has an ax to grind. It's not hard to see where her comments come from. Morton also paints Meghan as someone that just leaves her friends behind as she moves onto bigger and better things. Yet, a number of Meghan's best friends are from before Suits. Lindsey Jill Roth has been around since Northwestern days. Seems that she kept more than she left behind.

 

[Kitty1224]

I just think some people were chosen to do something special and others follow suit which Diana was. Like MJ with music

 

[Osipi]

I just think some people were chosen to do something special and others follow suit which Diana was. Like MJ with music

That, m'dear, is just a matter of opinion. Michael Jackson actually rates very low with a lot of people on the music scale. He was popular with a certain demographics but he most certainly wasn't anything really special in a world of music with many, many spectacular people. His personal life earned him the nickname of "Wacko Jacko" and lets face it, he was odd.

BTW: I saw MJ perform with his family when he was only 5 years old. He did have talent but as a person and a solo performer, he never impressed me at all.

Its good to have your own heroes and saints and people you admire but its kind of foolish to expect the rest of the world to see the same things.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Michael Jackson was one of the best performers and musicians in the last century. His personal life has nothing to do with his musical genius and legend that reaches around the globe.

 

[Osipi]

There are many, many musicians on that level. Its all a matter of taste personally, IMO. Elton John, The Beatles with the genius of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry, Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra, and my personal favorite, Gordon Lightfoot The list goes on and on.

People don't make it into super stardom without talent and a certain je nais quoi pas but there's rarely one that will appeal to the majority of people. Jackson, without a doubt appealed to many, many people but never to all of the people. Same thing with the rest of them. Elvis is legendary and I personally don't care for him or his music all that much.

As for being special, everyone has something special about themselves if we look for it. Maybe not on the level of super stardom and worldwide admiration but we've all got our talents and things that we're good at.

 

[MARG]

Meghan Markle, soon to be The Duchess of ??????, is a living breathing human being. She made a success of her career and enjoys charity work and is good at it.

But this conversation is getting creepier by the page. Meghan is going to be Meghan, her own person, not squeezed and shoved into something that can be said to be 'Diana". Let Diana rest in peace.

Harry is not marrying his late mother. He is having a wonderful love affair that will include a wonderful wedding and hopefully a happy personal life.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Brilliant comment, MARG.

Reflected glory at this point, they'll never get to the level of worldwide popularity and influence that Diana had imo, they just don't have the charisma to pull it off.

I think there needs to be some nuance weighing 'charisma' based fame and notorious based fame. Unfortunately, Diana's 'fame' was not based on undiluted positivity. Much there was that caused great pain and embarrassment for many.

I don't think Harry or Meghan will seek to reflect that in their public lives with the public. Quite the reverse: discretion.

 

[Mbruno]

Michael Jackson was one of the best performers and musicians in the last century. His personal life has nothing to do with his musical genius and legend that reaches around the globe.

True, He was a skilled dancer and had an unusually gifted vocal range.

 

[Mbruno]

Meghan Markle, soon to be The Duchess of ??????, is a living breathing human being. She made a success of her career and enjoys charity work and is good at it.

But this conversation is getting creepier by the page. Meghan is going to be Meghan, her own person, not squeezed and shoved into something that can be said to be 'Diana". Let Diana rest in peace.

Harry is not marrying his late mother. He is having a wonderful love affair that will include a wonderful wedding and hopefully a happy personal life.

When many observers say that Meghan wants to be Diana 2.0,, they don’t mean she wants to be a carbon copy of Diana , or that Harry is marrying his mother. They mean that Meghan is someone who may have the ambition to become as famous as Diana or make a similar impact in the world, and that she may try to use her position in the Royal Family to pursue that goal..

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I think there needs to be some nuance weighing 'charisma' based fame and notorious based fame. Unfortunately, Diana's 'fame' was not based on undiluted positivity. Much there was that caused great pain and embarrassment for many.

Not in the early years when it was actually happening. Diana was not at all notorious then.

Only in the later years when some less flattering things began to be known did her fame get a twinge of notoriety.

And of course now when much more is known.

In the first years it was the dewy bride and her charisma that drew people in- I'm about Diana's age and vividly remember the stories about her in the early 80s. The photos drew you in and people who met her were enthralled.

Then some stories began gradually changing in the late 80s and early 90s. But even when Diana did some things like the Hoare incident, some glossed over it or made excuses. Her fame became complicated.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

There are many, many musicians on that level. Its all a matter of taste personally, IMO. Elton John, The Beatles with the genius of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry, Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra, and my personal favorite, Gordon Lightfoot The list goes on and on.

People don't make it into super stardom without talent and a certain je nais quoi pas but there's rarely one that will appeal to the majority of people. Jackson, without a doubt appealed to many, many people but never to all of the people. Same thing with the rest of them. Elvis is legendary and I personally don't care for him or his music all that much.

As for being special, everyone has something special about themselves if we look for it. Maybe not on the level of super stardom and worldwide admiration but we've all got our talents and things that we're good at.

This isn't about some kumbaya everyone is important mentality. You may think everyone is special but that doesn't change that there are people who were extraordinary and accomplished great things through talent, drive, and in some cases genius. Michael Jackson was one of those people as were The Beatles, Elvis, Mozart etc. Whether you care for them is not the point; you can not like a persons work while at the same time acknowledging that it's good. I dislike JK Rowling but I can admit she is a good writer.

Meghan Markle, soon to be The Duchess of ??????, is a living breathing human being. She made a success of her career and enjoys charity work and is good at it.

But this conversation is getting creepier by the page. Meghan is going to be Meghan, her own person, not squeezed and shoved into something that can be said to be 'Diana". Let Diana rest in peace.

Harry is not marrying his late mother. He is having a wonderful love affair that will include a wonderful wedding and hopefully a happy personal life.

I've said it regarding a comment about Meghan wearing a piece of Diana's wedding dress and regarding Kate as well; this drive to turn things Kate and Meghan do all about Diana is creepy and almost sick. If William really went to Kate and said " wear a red dress like my mom wore" then that is a little too Norman Bates for me. In a similar fashion Meghan going to Harry to say "can I have a piece of your moms wedding dress" gives me Single White Female flashbacks.

 

[Osipi]

I think what it boils down to for me is that I'd never want to see a "new" anybody. Michael Jackson was who he was and his talents were his own. Diana was her own person and her talents were her own. I have a word for people that want to be "just like" somebody else or want someone to emulate someone else. I call them "sheeple". That's a baaaaad way to be. (pun intended)

People are actually doing someone a disservice by comparing someone to Diana or Michael Jackson or Sponge Bob Square Pants. No single person in history or in existence or anywhere should be put on a pedestal so high that they're seen more as "super stars" or "saints" or "God chosen" and believe that someone else should aspire to be "just like" them. Its a fantasy. Its not reality. Anyone that reaches that pinnacle of global admiration ends up being seen as bigger, brighter and better than the real person that they were/are. They tend to become larger than life and their halos are so bright that we don't see the real person.

Legendary people are legendary because of their uniqueness in standing out in our world for their own reasons. They are one of a kind that will not pass this way again. Everyone has the potential to be legendary but that will happen when they are themselves and not "just like" somebody else.

I do see Harry and Meghan as a charismatic team going into the future. They have their own unique brand of interacting with each other and with the people they meet. I see Diana's influence reflected in Harry but I sure the hell don't wish him to become a "new Diana" personality. I like Harry for being Harry and Meghan for being the Meghan she is. Time will tell.

Diana has been dead for over 20 years now and definitely still remembered and talked about and discussed. She is a part of history. The good, the bad, the ugly and all facets of Diana are remembered. She wasn't a saint, she wasn't a villain and she wasn't a goddess or a victim. She was a complex human being that was unique unto herself. Same with Michael Jackson and JFK and King Edward VIII and The Duchess of Windsor.

Reminds me of a quote from one of my all time favorite movies "Dead Poet's Society" where Walt Whitman was quoted. "O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?' Answer. That you are here — that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse."

 

[MARG]

When many observers say that Meghan wants to be Diana 2.0,, they don’t mean she wants to be a carbon copy of Diana , or that Harry is marrying his mother. They mean that Meghan is someone who may have the ambition to become as famous as Diana or make a similar impact in the world, and that she may try to use her position in the Royal Family to pursue that goal..

The trouble is that they have no evidence to support the claim and when posting here, need to add IMO unless they can cite a reliable and checkable source.

As to the rumour of Meghan asking for a bit of Diana's dress, well it is just that, yet another rumour with no reliable sources.

 

[Countessmeout]

What I never get is why every royal bride, not just british, they strive to be the 'next Diana', in the minds of everyone. Why???

Yes Diana was famous. But she isn't the only royal who has done amazing work. She certainly isn't the only royal who could or would be a role model to others.

Just like not everyone who becomes a pop singer wants to be the next MJ. Yes he was great, and yes they might want his fame, but do they want to be him?

Diana isn't a great example of a princess. I honestly hope Meghan doesn't become the next Princess Diana. In the early 80's and even mid to late 80's, when she was doing the role of 'princess' she wasn't much honestly. She was a pretty face, and mother to the next king. She wasn't even that popular with the people in the early years, Sarah was more popular. The wedding got attention, and her after that, because of Charles.

She was little more then a fashion icon if that back then.

It was in the late 80's, and 90's, when her marriage began to fall apart, that she became the Diana everyone knows. When she slimmed down her charities and focussed on the ones she wanted.

Diana is a good example of a humanitarian. But that's it.

Meghan is already a humanitarian. She has already established her passion for working with people. What she needs now is someone who she can look up to, which can show her to be a good Duchess/princess. Work ethic, connection with people, tradition balancing passion. People like Anne, the queen, Camilla, even Sophie would all be good examples for her.

I actually think her and Camilla would be a good pair for advice and direction. Camilla is dedicated to working with women's causes like domestic violence. Meghan may find paths to direct her own focus on women's issues into, which will still fit the 'acceptable royal mold'.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The main people who are pushing for a new Diana is the media; they want another cash cow and another War of the Wales'.

 

[AdmirerUS]

What I never get is why every royal bride, not just british, they strive to be the 'next Diana', in the minds of everyone. Why???

Personally, I have never seen anything that led me to believe Camilla or Catherine were trying to be a "new Diana." In fact, I think they have plowed their own distinct roles.

 

[Osipi]

I also am inclined to believe that royal women that followed after the Diana years looked to Diana as to what *not* to do moreso than to try and emulate her.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I also am inclined to believe that royal women that followed after the Diana years looked to Diana as to what *not* to do moreso than to try and emulate her.

Agree 100%. Diana was a cautionary tale. Every woman who has (since Diana) married into the BRF has made certain to be deferential to their royal husbands in public, cognizant that their status stems from the status of their royal husbands, and have for sure been discreet (no tell-all books have ever been forthcoming). Plus there has been no wanton sexual behavior (strings of affairs) nor outrageous public displays of immaturity. Diana is a cautionary tale.

 

[Pranter]

I said from day one of that you were going to see Kate doing what she can to downplay media interest.

The BRF learned a lot...the whole approach to the Cambridge marriage and first couple or so years was very different and it is fortunate (not being the PoW) they were able to stay out of most of the limelight, William able to be military and then take an actual job before they needed to change things. Let them ease into it.

Of course William has taken a very hard line with the press and they have been very clear about what will or will not be allowed. No pandering to colluding with the press by Kate either. They seem to have a very stable marriage and a good relationship.



LaRae

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

Diana has been contributed as being the trail-blazer in regards to how other royals have entered the international scene - and she undeniable was. Certainly in regards to putting focus on major international issues, like AIDS and landmines.

I think the impact of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, on other royal houses is a tad, shall we say, exaggerated. In fact, I fail to see any evidence at all to support such a claim. Long before Diana came along, Silvia of Sweden, Sonja of Norway, Fabiola of Belgium, Sirindhorn of Thailand, Noor of Jordan and even Michiko of Japan were changing the role of royal ladies in public life. In their own ways, they took a new hands on, ongoing approach to many of their charitable causes. For example, in 1968, the then Crown Princess Michiko of Japan visited a Hansen's Disease (Leprosy) sanatorium, and broke social taboos by sitting and holding hands with patients.

The late Diana, Princess of Wales, could generate immense publicity with minimal effort. Did that make her a great humanitarian? No, I don't think so. It did, however, make her a great promoter of causes, which can be just as important. She is always lauded for her work to eradicate landmines, but in reality, that 'work' was only a couple of days in Angola and Bosnia, in a public life spanning over fifteen years. What was her true motivation? Where was the ongoing, follow up work? Well, her death makes that a moot point.

Miss Markle will also be in a position to promote causes at an international level, but that is probably where any comparisons to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, come to an end. Unlike the mother-in-law she will never know, Miss Markle does not seem interested in promoting herself. Like Prince Harry and the Duke of Cambridge, she seems to be interested in long term results from genuine hands-on involvement. Carefully staged publicity stunts, do not appear to be her style.

Diana 2.0? No, I don't think so, and that is a very, very good thing.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Wow I didn't know that about Michiko, that was a wonderful and very incredible thing to do. As was already pointed out I think Diana and Sarah are cautionary tales for what brides shouldn't do when they marry a Prince.

 

[lucien]

Exactly,thank you!!!Your comment is a fresh breath of air !!!

What I never get is why every royal bride, not just british, they strive to be the 'next Diana', in the minds of everyone. Why???

Yes Diana was famous. But she isn't the only royal who has done amazing work. She certainly isn't the only royal who could or would be a role model to others.

Just like not everyone who becomes a pop singer wants to be the next MJ. Yes he was great, and yes they might want his fame, but do they want to be him?

Diana isn't a great example of a princess. I honestly hope Meghan doesn't become the next Princess Diana. In the early 80's and even mid to late 80's, when she was doing the role of 'princess' she wasn't much honestly. She was a pretty face, and mother to the next king. She wasn't even that popular with the people in the early years, Sarah was more popular. The wedding got attention, and her after that, because of Charles.

She was little more then a fashion icon if that back then.

It was in the late 80's, and 90's, when her marriage began to fall apart, that she became the Diana everyone knows. When she slimmed down her charities and focussed on the ones she wanted.

Diana is a good example of a humanitarian. But that's it.

Meghan is already a humanitarian. She has already established her passion for working with people. What she needs now is someone who she can look up to, which can show her to be a good Duchess/princess. Work ethic, connection with people, tradition balancing passion. People like Anne, the queen, Camilla, even Sophie would all be good examples for her.

I actually think her and Camilla would be a good pair for advice and direction. Camilla is dedicated to working with women's causes like domestic violence. Meghan may find paths to direct her own focus on women's issues into, which will still fit the 'acceptable royal mold'.

 

[Kitty1224]

Diana will always be one special woman. Those who met her were star struck by her presence and said she had something special about her that is rare in people.

 

[Osipi]

Diana will always be one special woman. Those who met her were star struck by her presence and said she had something special about her that is rare in people.

Those that saw Diana and were "star struck" by her were not the people that actually got to know her as a person. They saw her in her public role. Glamor and popularity of this "Hollywood" red carpet type is an image and not a reflection on the real person. Its fantasy, its larger than life and its fool's gold and is not reflective of Diana, the woman she was.

How you see Diana, I think, is a good example of whether people see her as a "celebrity" or as a "royal". There is a huge difference.

 

[Kitty1224]

Those that saw Diana and were "star struck" by her were not the people that actually got to know her as a person. They saw her in her public role. Glamor and popularity of this "Hollywood" red carpet type is an image and not a reflection on the real person. Its fantasy, its larger than life and its fool's gold and is not reflective of Diana, the woman she was.

How you see Diana, I think, is a good example of whether people see her as a "celebrity" or as a "royal". There is a huge difference.

I beg to differ. She was just Diana. She had something that made her stand out. Wasn't just because of her title. I think your hate for Diana is very judgemental.

 

[Denville]

Those that saw Diana and were "star struck" by her were not the people that actually got to know her as a person. They saw her in her public role. Glamor and popularity of this "Hollywood" red carpet type is an image and not a reflection on the real person. Its fantasy, its larger than life and its fool's gold and is not reflective of Diana, the woman she was.

How you see Diana, I think, is a good example of whether people see her as a "celebrity" or as a "royal". There is a huge difference.

that's the case with all royals..and indeed famous people. What we see in public is partgly "fantasy". Diana had a special quality, NOT like Hitler's charisma.. whichmade her popular over and above the many women who marry into royal families