A New Diana?

[JR76]

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

The issue with Diana wasn't that she became more popular than other members of the family but that she actively, at least during the latter part of her marriage, used her popularity to outshine both her husband and the institution of monarchy itself.
By doing so and by playing to the media like she did, Diana crossed the threshold between royal and celebrity something that threw the monarchy into a decade of turmoil not seen since the abdication and in the end led to that fatal carcrash in a Parisian tunnel.
Most crown princesses and queens are more popular and have a higher profile than their husbands but they also realise that their main job is to support their husband and not become the main attraction themselves.

 

[Osipi]

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.

Hate is a really strong word and you have no idea how I perceive Diana at all. She was extremely popular to the point that she's been labeled as "iconic". I can attest to that by stating right out that in the 80s, I *did* walk into a beauty salon and request a "Diana haircut". She did have a way with people called charisma and she knew how to use it and connect with people. She did some remarkable things in her lifetime. She also caused a lot of grief to people around her.

I do not worship the ground she walked on. I don't worship the ground that anyone walks on to be honest. I do not perceive her as someone extraordinarily special. It wasn't actually until I logged on here and actually read through the different Diana threads, ordered and read oodles of noodles of books on Diana (the good, the bad, the ugly and the fantasy) that I began to get a glimpse of who the "real" Diana was. Not only in her public life but also the anguish, the joys and the sorrows she experienced and began to understand Diana rather than see her as a "fairy tale princess".

When you come to understand the person that Diana was, you come to the realization that she was a unique individual with many talents along with many flaws and many issues. I wouldn't wish being a "new Diana" on anybody. There is just so much more to Diana than her popularity and her glamor and her public role.

Just to emphasize a statement I made before, I was in no way comparing Diana to Hitler at all. I was merely pointing out that there's a lot of famous people that had/have natural charisma and have influenced people easily with it. Just like some people are seemingly born with "the gift of the gab". Harry, I believe, exhibits the charisma that his mother had. Its a wonderful trait to have inherited.

So, in conclusion, I stand by my opinion that I sincerely hope there is never a "new Diana" anywhere.

 

[Kitty1224]

The issue with Diana wasn't that she became more popular than other members of the family but that she actively, at least during the latter part of her marriage, used her popularity to outshine both her husband and the institution of monarchy itself.
By doing so and by playing to the media like she did, Diana crossed the threshold between royal and celebrity something that threw the monarchy into a decade of turmoil not seen since the abdication and in the end led to that fatal carcrash in a Parisian tunnel.
Most crown princesses and queens are more popular and have a higher profile than their husbands but they also realise that their main job is to support their husband and not become the main attraction themselves.

I do not get how outshining the monarchy and Charles makes one a celebrity. She just transcended royalty thags basically it.

 

[JR76]

I do not get how outshining the monarchy and Charles makes one a celebrity. She just transcended royalty thags basically it.

Monarchy is not about the person it's about the institution.
As I wrote in the next section of my post she, by consciously promoting herself and her interests through the press, did become more of a tabloid celebrity than a princess. Later after her divorce quite literally.
I'm not saying that being a celebrity is wrong but it's not something, in my opinion, a member of a ruling house should strive for.

 

[Kitty1224]

Monarchy is not about the person it's about the institution.
As I wrote in the next section of my post she, by consciously promoting herself and her interests through the press, did become more of a tabloid celebrity than a princess. Later after her divorce quite literally.
I'm not saying that being a celebrity is wrong but it's not something, in my opinion, a member of a ruling house should strive for.

I disagree. She was still a princess to majority of people’s eyes. She was just that royal who became a superstar. She was and still is immensely popular.

 

[JR76]

I disagree. She was still a princess to majority of people’s eyes. She was just that royal who became a superstar. She was and still is immensely popular.

"Transcends royalty, superstar" your words proves my point exactly.

 

[Kitty1224]

"Transcends royalty, superstar" your words proves my point exactly.

But that’s not a celebrity.

 

[Osipi]

Basically, your view of Diana is similar to a teenybopper gazing at the glossy picture of her heartthrob hero. You see a "princess" as in a Disney movie. You see a "superstar". You have Diana so high on a pedestal that you cannot see the person that she really was. Do you really know anything about Diana other than she was a "superstar"? Have you read biographies? Do you see her influence in her children? Do you care to or are you happy with your definition of "princess".

Most of the discussions here are about Diana, the "real" person and not some glossy image or starstruck people fawning over a superstar. As I said before, I like to discuss the "real" person and for fantasy, I'll watch the Disney channel.

Diana did transcend royalty. She worked for the greater glory of Diana rather than work for the royal house to which she belonged.

 

[Missjersey]

I don’t know (yes I do) all I want to say is that’s some kool aid

 

[JR76]

Well we're all entitled to our different opinions. I as a diehard monarchist will have a totally different view on the subject than someone who was pulled in by someone's glamour factor. For me, all that glorious pomp and circumstance aside, it's about governance, politics, a way of life. I can't even imagine not how I'd look at my own country if the monarchy fell and we had a republic instead.

 

[Missy-]

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.

It's also a cautionary tale of how princes shouldn't act after they're married, let's be fair. There were no innocent parties.

 

[Missy-]

Well we're all entitled to our different opinions. I as a diehard monarchist will have a totally different view on the subject than someone who was pulled in by someone's glamour factor. For me, all that glorious pomp and circumstance aside, it's about governance, politics, a way of life. I can't even imagine not how I'd look at my own country if the monarchy fell and we had a republic instead.

If all you see when you look at Diana is the glamour then you weren't looking very deeply, in fact it seems a rather shallow viewpoint and rather pompous imo.

And yes, thank goodness for differing opinions or else we'd all be robots doing whatever the politicos think we should do. No thanks, not for me.

 

[Osipi]

Its obvious that this concept of a "new Diana" is not one the moderators deemed suitable enough to be included in the many different threads that discuss all the facets of Diana. Its been moved to "Royal Chit Chat" and that, to me, speaks volumes. This is deemed, to me, more of a "fandom" thread than one that really looks into the person that Diana was.

OOOH! She was more popular and people fell at her feet in awe of the amazing spectacle that giittered and glowed called Diana. She was a PRINCESS! Its fantasy.

Now I'm definitely done here. Other more interesting things to focus on. Like the royal wedding in two weeks.

 

[Missy-]

Its obvious that this concept of a "new Diana" is not one the moderators deemed suitable enough to be included in the many different threads that discuss all the facets of Diana. Its been moved to "Royal Chit Chat" and that, to me, speaks volumes. This is deemed, to me, more of a "fandom" thread than one that really looks into the person that Diana was.

OOOH! She was more popular and people fell at her feet in awe of the amazing spectacle that giittered and glowed called Diana. She was a PRINCESS! Its fantasy.

Now I'm definitely done here. Other more interesting things to focus on. Like the royal wedding in two weeks.

Bye!! Have fun with your fantasy. Bet it ends up a lot different than you expect, fantasies usually do.

 

[Osipi]

Bye!! Have fun with your fantasy. Bet it ends up a lot different than you expect, fantasies usually do.

No expectations whatsoever. I deal in reality. That's probably due extensive training in journalism. Anyways... enjoy!

 

[Mbruno]

Well we're all entitled to our different opinions. I as a diehard monarchist will have a totally different view on the subject than someone who was pulled in by someone's glamour factor. For me, all that glorious pomp and circumstance aside, it's about governance, politics, a way of life. I can't even imagine not how I'd look at my own country if the monarchy fell and we had a republic instead.

Sweden is already pratically a republic: the King no longer signs bills into law, appoints or dismisses the cabinet, commands the Armed Forces, or ratifies international treaties. If the monarchy fell tomorrow, the change would be minimal.

 

[JR76]

Sweden is already pratically a republic: the King no longer signs bills into law, appoints or dismisses the cabinet, commands the Armed Forces, or ratifies international treaties. If the monarchy fell tomorrow, the change would be minimal.

As long as there's a monarch Sweden is a monarchy. To me the change would be monumental. I'm not talking politics but I'm talking about perception, the way a nation looks upon itself and what values it deems important.

 

[Kitty1224]

Bye!! Have fun with your fantasy. Bet it ends up a lot different than you expect, fantasies usually do.

Also have to remember Diana knew her role as a princess and excelled in it which made her a superstar not a celebrity.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Sweden is already pratically a republic: the King no longer signs bills into law, appoints or dismisses the cabinet, commands the Armed Forces, or ratifies international treaties. If the monarchy fell tomorrow, the change would be minimal.

I don't think we Americans can judge how citizens who live in whatever form of constitutional monarchy would feel if they suddenly became a republic, democracy or something else. I'm sure some in the country would feel bereft of something important.

 

[M. Payton]

Kitty1224:
A celebrity is someone famous and a superstar is someone who preforms in public, so I think they are one and the same. Diana was famous and yet she preformed her duties in public which made her a superstar......one and the same IMHO.

 

[Kitty1224]

Kitty1224:
A celebrity is someone famous and a superstar is someone who preforms in public, so I think they are one and the same. Diana was famous and yet she preformed her duties in public which made her a superstar......one and the same IMHO.

That makes sense. I was trying to see what Oispi was coming from.

 

[M. Payton]

Yet being married into a *royal family* one regardless of whom they are or whom they married means that you work for the family, not for yourself. Diana took it upon herself to promote *herself* for herself, not for the good of the entire family as has been shown. In a royal family or any family, it is the *entire family* that pulls the weight *not just one person* for if that happens as it did, then it upsets then goals that the entire family is working to achieve. Diana achieved lots of good and I don't think anyone disputes that yet turning into a celebrity is not what any royal family is about.....they are there at the will of the people and for the good of the *entire country* only. Once that is disrupted and there is crisis within the family then some begin to wonder why have a royal family. I hope I am making sense of this for you.....any questions or concerns we are here to help you understand!

 

[Elan]

If you like Diana in the present day, at some point you almost have to defend the position. Suppose it's a positive outlook. It can reflect to others as ignoring her shortcomings..however in reality, the same outlook can be aware of shortcomings. The faults themselves are all out there, they're documented immeasurably well. It's just that the concensus about them is different depending on which camp you're in.

A) Those that accept and like the person she was in sum total.

B) Those fed up with her needs and issues, desiring a more well tempered, balanced, solid, unwavering Princess.

 

[AdmirerUS]

If you like Diana in the present day, at some point you almost have to defend the position. Suppose it's a positive outlook. It can reflect to others as ignoring her shortcomings..however in reality, the same outlook can be aware of shortcomings. The faults themselves are all out there, they're documented immeasurably well. It's just that the concensus about them is different depending on which camp you're in.

A) Those that accept and like the person she was in sum total.

B) Those fed up with her needs and issues, desiring a more well tempered, balanced, solid, unwavering Princess.

The third group, those who see her as human and at this point, a part of history. And as I type this, I realize it is off the topic of a new Diana.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

As has been stated by many already here is no new Diana and RFs don't seem to want one. The royal brides since the 90s seem to put their family and status above their own desires. They play the glamour and fame game but they don't thrive off it.

 

[Kitty1224]

As has been stated by many already here is no new Diana and RFs don't seem to want one. The royal brides since the 90s seem to put their family and status above their own desires. They play the glamour and fame game but they don't thrive off it.

I do not think Diana thrived off glamour and fame. She had a broken marriage and by all accounts she was a mother first.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Diana was obsessed with her image and what the masses thought about her; she started to think she was the star of the show instead of the 3rd lead and support for the entire production. Plus she even used her children to boost her image by making sure she was photographed with them at the amusement park.
I'm not implying she didn't love her kids, but she was addicted to her own public image; something I doubt the BRF or any other royal family wants in the future.

 

[Denville]

? Charles was also seen very obviously "with his children" in public.. what was that but boosting his image

 

[Osipi]

One thing was always clear to me. No matter what the problems were between Charles and Diana as people, one thing they both did well with was raising their sons. Both of them sincerely loved their boys and excelled in different ways of parenting them.

William and Harry got the best of both parents in this regard.

 

[wyevale]

NO thank you.. one was MORE than enough..