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

[Durham]

That's true of course but in the case of the British monarchy that's a relatively recent innovation. And the dangers of pushing the image of an ideal family are obvious. Humans are flawed after all. Private lives can be messy. Not everyone is capable of living lives like George V & Queen Mary or George VI & Queen Elizabeth or indeed Elizabeth II.

Interestingly on the British monarchy website there is not a whisper of anything to do with family events in its description of the role of the royal family. It's primarily about members of the royal family carrying out their duties to the state, service to the community & supporting the monarch.

 

[TLLK]

That's true of course but in the case of the British monarchy that's a relatively recent innovation. And the dangers of pushing the image of an ideal family are obvious. Humans are flawed after all. Private lives can be messy. Not everyone is capable of living lives like George V & Queen Mary or George VI & Queen Elizabeth or indeed Elizabeth II.

Interestingly on the British monarchy website there is not a whisper of anything to do with family events in its description of the role of the royal family. It's primarily about members of the royal family carrying out their duties to the state, service to the community & supporting the monarch.

Excellent points and I it is true that the website does not focus upon the private family events when it comes to the members carrying out their duties in support of the monarch and the nation. It's only in the individual biographies is their any mention of their spouses and children.

 

[Heavs]

That's true of course but in the case of the British monarchy that's a relatively recent innovation. And the dangers of pushing the image of an ideal family are obvious. Humans are flawed after all. Private lives can be messy. Not everyone is capable of living lives like George V & Queen Mary or George VI & Queen Elizabeth or indeed Elizabeth II.

Interestingly on the British monarchy website there is not a whisper of anything to do with family events in its description of the role of the royal family. It's primarily about members of the royal family carrying out their duties to the state, service to the community & supporting the monarch.

Indeed. I'd argue that it started with Queen Victoria and Albert in reaction to the excess and "wildness" of some of the Hanoverians. Most of Victorian society was in part a reaction to that. And apart from Edward VII the family have more or less kept it up since then.

Before that no royal families were really seen to be a model family of the nation, with mistresses and lovers held openly and illegitimate children either openly acknowledged or very, very open secrets.

If we go further back your closest relatives were obviously the ones most likely to be your greatest threat and not just because they briefed the press against you in a PR war. Those wars and "family" struggles actually tore the country apart.

 

[Aniston_Crazy]

Why does Diana still evoke such strong positive and negative reactions in people?

To this day, from seemingly intelligent people, they either see Diana as the ultimate villian (downright evil at times) to the perfect Saint. Now any human knows people are complicated with grey areas and can be good and bad.

For some reason when it comes to the charles and diana thing, these human observations seem to go out the window and they're only seen as black and white.

I've been swayed throughout the years. As a youngster, believing the hype then seeing a lot of nastiness about her. I admit I was swayed and being really disliking her and disliked the worship of her all around the world. I stopped getting into it because it was just one disappointment after another and I felt so bad for charles and the brf and the staff/friends who had to deal with Diana.

Now as I'm older, I don't care as much but I still find it fascinating how people still react to her, even people who weren't alive during her death. Why does inspire such visceral reactions in people?

There's always an anxiety in browsing this thread because I'm thinking will there be a good side to her shown? A private situation that shows she was a good person or will it be the opposite.

 

[Alison H]

There seems to be a thing about famous women who die young. Eva Peron is the other obvious example, but you could also point to Marie Antoinette. Some people do seem to get quite obsessive about them, and lack objectivity. And, with Diana, it was all supposed to be such a fairytale - the big wedding and all the rest of it.


I think Diana was a difficult person, probably largely due to her childhood. Her parents needed a male heir and, as the third daughter, she possibly felt a bit unwanted, although a brother soon came along. Then they very publicly and bitterly divorced - Johnnie Spencer branded Frances an unfit mother in court and, as they were from such a prominent family, there was a lot of newspaper coverage of it. Then she made an unhappy marriage. If Charles and Diana had been any other couple, they would have accepted that they weren't suited, divorced after a few years, and moved on, but, as the Prince and Princess of Wales, they had to keep going, and it must have been very hard for both of them.


She and Charles both sound difficult to live with, but I think she was manipulative with the media. Having said all that, she did a lot of good work for some very important causes: the pictures of her shaking hands with AIDS patients really did change attitudes. And she was clearly a loving mother. She had good points and bad points, as most people do.

 

[Blog Real]

Diana had her faults like anyone else. I believe she was a difficult person.
But I also believe that she was a good mother, and that she liked to play with her children.
Much of what William and Harry are today inherited from her mother.

 

[Hallo girl]

What a really interesting question.
I followed and believed the fairy tale.
Even when the media were publishing gossip I still believed the fairy tale.
I was so disappointed when reality hit, looking back the clues were there.
Diana did great work and brought the media attention to some deserving causes, the public loved her.
I still believe she wanted to remain married to Charles, she mistakenly thought they would never divorce and the public affection for her would force him to stay with her. Her mistake was firstly the book then the interview, once it was out there that Charles loved somebody else her power was gone. The damage was done , she had lost her edge.
The media was manipulated to tell her story, to make her look better than Charles, the media manipulated her also.
The last cruise, the new boyfriend, the kiss, the trip to Paris, all of a sudden after years of hiding her boyfriends , Dodi was front page news.
I have often wondered if that relationship had all been kept under wraps would she have been leaving the Ritz that night in full view of the press.
Who was manipulating who.

 

[Aniston_Crazy]

I forgot to mention the mental health aspect of it all. I once read Diana would be diagnosed as borderline personality and some even said narcissistic sociopath (yikes!) Only recently has there been a wider exploration and understanding of mental health issues, so I feel she would've done well to benefit from help and support. She would've dealt through all the dysfunction, understood herself and her issues and hopefully done good in the mental health field. I think there would've been more empathy towards her if she had a diagnosis. This is just my opinion.

I do think Diana is a large part of why they created heads together.

I haven't been on here for a while but elsewhere online, when talking about the royals, the conversation goes back to Diana and again, emotions are heightened are people go from one extreme to another. It's very hard to see a fair discussion anywhere. It became like this thing where anything new came out I was like oh god what horrible thing about Diana is out there now. Or oh wow that was nice story about her, that was a good thing etc etc.

I wonder if it was because she was the first global superstar of the time and nothing like it was seen before. Beautiful, blonde, blue eyed, motherly ( all the tropes) People put their own projections into what a princess should be. So when she fell short of anything heavenly, it bothered people. Maybe if she didn't play severe pr games and was open about her flaws from the beginning, it wouldn't have got to people so much that she was far from a "princess" and the most beloved.

It's the affairs with married men that bothered me. I'm not judging her on her anger issues, relationships and other stuff. Lord knows I've done things I regret and have been messed up. I don't see myself as a bad person, just one with issues and a bit broken. But I would've thought she would've saved another family from breaking up or kids getting hurt by getting involved with their dad. When charles looks like the good guy because he only had one long term extra marital affair.

I like that her and rainie made up near the end. Shows she could be soft/forgiving and be mature. And I really hope her charity interactions and how she cared for kids was sincere. Again when people mention all that, others chime in with oh she dropped all her charities and only did it to look better than the brf.

 

[Sandy345]

Diana was diagnosed as having Bulimia Nervosa and went for treatment to the same doctor that treated her sister Sarah for Anorexia. Unfortunately those who did not care much for Diana and wrote books about her, "diagnosed" her posthumously with various other disorders when they were not qualified to do so.

As far as her affairs, she was for the most part involved with single men. Charles it should be remembered moved on after they had the two children. He was with Camilla and Janet Jenkins (the letters sent by Charles and Janet were auctioned off a few years ago. Diana was never named as co-respondent in any divorces. Carling denied having an affair. Hoare and Diana never commented and he did stay with his wife. Diana point blank denied she had a physical relationship with Mannakee when she spoke to Settelen. She was involved with Hewitt who ultimately betrayed her selling their story to Anna Pasternack. And I believe she was in love with Dr. Khan and he with her. I think Dodi was a fling. After the separation and then the divorce, she was involved with Dr. Khan. I don't think it should have been expected that Diana would have to be celibate after her marriage with Charles was in name (she had the heir and spare) only and CHarles was involved with a married woman himself. If divorce had been allowed sooner and Diana was not at risk of losing access to her sons and being called a "bolter," both of them could have moved on earlier.

I don't think Diana wanted to "hide out" Dr. Khan, he was said to have been the one not to go public. Diana was divorced a year from Charles and was free to date Dodi Fayed and go public. Even Charles did not go public with Camilla until after he divorced DIana.

 

[Happiness Always]

I'm one of the ones who see Diana in a positive light. I don't think of her as a saint, though. She did a lot of good by putting the spotlight on things she was interested in.


Remember the photo of her after the engagement was announced? Or, was it that she was mostly likely to be the wife of the future king? She was holding a child, and she had on a long skirt. I remember thinking she's so happy but, but, ahhhh, I can see her legs! The skirt was of lightweight material. (I'm such a prude!)
I think she was in love with Charles. She must've been so hurt that he wasn't in love with her and finding out that everyone else knew about Charles and Camilla was not something she couldn't bear. Shock, hurt and anger... Plus, she was expected to put up with it. Perhaps she hoped once she gave birth to the heir and the spare, things would go in her favor. Charles would drop Camilla and become a doting father and loving husband. Life went on as before, so she took care of her children to make sure they weren't in a cocoon; exposing them to the poor by volunteering at a shelter to feed the homeless, having fun at an amusement park...
Since the press followed her around, why not use them to put a spotlight on her favorite causes?

I suppose if she put up with Charles and Camilla by keeping quiet and doing only what she was expected to do, things would be vastly different. Diana would be alive, her boys following in their father's footsteps, perhaps the Diana who was the golden egg for photographers and fodder for the media wouldn't have emerged...

I'm glad her sons seem to have found love. They married the women they wanted, not someone the "firm" deemed "princess material".

 

[Alison H]

I think it's rather unfair to say that Diana would still be alive if she'd "put up" with Charles and Camilla. She was killed in a car crash. It was hardly their fault. Whenever anyone's killed in a car crash, you can always say, what if they'd gone out five minutes earlier or five minutes later, or what if they'd taken a different route ... it doesn't work like that. She didn't have to be in that place, at that time. What if she and Dodi had gone to Rome or Madrid instead of Paris? What if their driver had taken a route that didn't go through tunnels? Accidents happen. It's very sad, but I don't think it's really fair to say that someone would still be alive if they'd still been with their ex.


Hopefully, if she was still alive, she'd have found happiness, with or without a new partner.

 

[Denville]

I think it's rather unfair to say that Diana would still be alive if she'd "put up" with Charles and Camilla. She was killed in a car crash. It was hardly their fault. Whenever anyone's killed in a car crash, you can always say, what if they'd gone out five minutes earlier or five minutes later, or what if they'd taken a different route ... it doesn't work like that. She didn't have to be in that place, at that time. What if she and Dodi had gone to Rome or Madrid instead of Paris? What if their driver had taken a route that didn't go through tunnels? Accidents happen. It's very sad, but I don't think it's really fair to say that someone would still be alive if they'd still been with their ex.


Hopefully, if she was still alive, she'd have found happiness, with or without a new partner.

Truth is, that if she hadn't ended her marriage, she probably would not have been in Paris, that night and she certainly would have had her RPOS.. so from that POV, breaking up her marriage IMO didn't really help her a lot.. I think she was not very happy, and having estranged herself from the RF, she chose to drop her RPOs and made herself vulnerable. However I agree that it wasn't breaking up her marriage per se that put her in that situation, it was the fact that she foolishly got involved with a family who were not really all that concerned about her and who didn't have good security...

 

[Happiness Always]

I was speculating that things might have worked out differently if Diana toed the line. If she kept quiet and didn't make a fuss in public or private (not even unloading to her closest and dearest friends / relatives), did what was expected of her (carrying out her royal duties and not really making her mark so as not to become a media darling), life might've turned out differently. She and Charles would be together. Not happily for her as Charles and Camilla would be carrying on their affair. The boys might've turned out differently. They might've accepted whomever the "firm" selected for them and, like father, like son, have long term affairs.

 

[Alison H]

No-one "selected" partners for the Queen, George VI, Anne, Andrew or Edward. Charles and Diana unwisely rushed into marriage. I think it was for the best that they divorced. With hindsight, it would have been better if they'd divorced a lot earlier.

 

[lucien]

As to the original question,....Hysteria

 

[Denville]

No-one "selected" partners for the Queen, George VI, Anne, Andrew or Edward. Charles and Diana unwisely rushed into marriage. I think it was for the best that they divorced. With hindsight, it would have been better if they'd divorced a lot earlier.

True I think that though Charles felt under more pressure to marry than his siblings, so when he got to over 30, he began to "try and find a wife".. and to agonise about "was this woman the right one, when HIS marriage really needed to work"... So he rushed it. And Diana too, I think wanted to marry because she had an instinctive feeling that she could fulfil herself through some grand public romantic marraige...

 

[_Heather_]

Honestly, Diana was a human being with all the ups and downs and positives and negatives that brings with it. She was no saint but neither was she the evil villain. Diana did some incredible work that significantly changed the conversation around AIDS, land mines, etc. and she rightly deserves the praise that drew. However, we all know that Diana was certainly not all sunshine and rainbows. She was manipulative, volatile, immature, and all in all I would think she was incredibly difficult to be around much of the time. I do think that Diana's childhood certainly impacted who and what she became as an adult both for good and bad. That said, while Diana was in many respects an incredible mother, she certainly had her faults in that area, too.

As for why she continues to evoke such strong feelings, well, I think the only answer to that is that the spin-doctors were very, very skilled and did their jobs well. Not just those employed by the RF but those employed by the media, by the publishers of the book, by those charities and causes that benefitted from their association with her, etc. The public saw, read, and heard it all and the messaging both for and against Diana was extremely effective.

We can speculate endlessly about whether or not she'd still be alive if she'd remained married, toed the line, etc. or even if she'd divorced but remained quiet, discreet, and loyal to the RF. No one can ever know the answers to those questions with any certainty. I do truly believe that had she lived, she and Charles would have become friendly and developed a much healthier relationship. It is said that in the months before her death they were beginning to find a bit of friendship and were in a much better place operating as co-parents than they had been as unhappy spouses. We've seen Camilla and Andrew, Andrew and Fergie, and even Anne and Mark become friendly ex-spouses and excellent co-parents. I do believe that, with time and happier second marriages/long-term relationships, Diana and Charles would have fallen into this group as well. No one can know what their boys would have become and how their personalities, actions, and behaviors would differ from the current reality had their mother lived, though it is interesting to speculate. I do think, though, that we can safely conclude that that reality would be much, much different that the reality of today.

 

[Denville]

What spin doctors? I dont think that in Diana's early days, the RF employed spin doctors. Diana was popular from the day she was first seen with Charles.. she jsut had a natural charm. Later she did employ a spin doctor of her own but I think taht was the first and Diana didn't stick with her for long.. as she often did, she fell out iwth the lady and she quit.

 

[_Heather_]

What spin doctors? I dont think that in Diana's early days, the RF employed spin doctors. Diana was popular from the day she was first seen with Charles.. she jsut had a natural charm. Later she did employ a spin doctor of her own but I think taht was the first and Diana didn't stick with her for long.. as she often did, she fell out iwth the lady and she quit.

The RF has always employed spin doctors. Yes, I'm sure the job description has changed somewhat over the years but there have always been those employed by the RF to push a certain look, a certain agenda, a certain narrative. And certainly there were spin doctors employed for years who made very good money selling an image of either the saintly and martyred Diana or the evil villainous Diana, whatever best suited their own needs and agendas.

Diana was very much in a position where everyone wanted a piece of her and that's true from her earliest days as the fiancee of the PoW. The trouble was that Diana believed her own hype, to a degree, and her own mental health was precarious enough that she was able to be influenced easily. We all know the paths that led down...frequent falling outs, extreme paranoia, the interview that she would later come to regret, the image of instability. Everyone wanted a piece of her, everyone profited off her. Some profited by the pushing the saintly image, some by pushing the villainous image but still, everyone gained something from spinning the Diana narrative to suit their own purposes.

 

[TLLK]

I forgot to mention the mental health aspect of it all. I once read Diana would be diagnosed as borderline personality and some even said narcissistic sociopath (yikes!) Only recently has there been a wider exploration and understanding of mental health issues, so I feel she would've done well to benefit from help and support. She would've dealt through all the dysfunction, understood herself and her issues and hopefully done good in the mental health field. I think there would've been more empathy towards her if she had a diagnosis. This is just my opinion.

I do think Diana is a large part of why they created heads together.

I haven't been on here for a while but elsewhere online, when talking about the royals, the conversation goes back to Diana and again, emotions are heightened are people go from one extreme to another. It's very hard to see a fair discussion anywhere. It became like this thing where anything new came out I was like oh god what horrible thing about Diana is out there now. Or oh wow that was nice story about her, that was a good thing etc etc.

I wonder if it was because she was the first global superstar of the time and nothing like it was seen before. Beautiful, blonde, blue eyed, motherly ( all the tropes) People put their own projections into what a princess should be. So when she fell short of anything heavenly, it bothered people. Maybe if she didn't play severe pr games and was open about her flaws from the beginning, it wouldn't have got to people so much that she was far from a "princess" and the most beloved.

It's the affairs with married men that bothered me. I'm not judging her on her anger issues, relationships and other stuff. Lord knows I've done things I regret and have been messed up. I don't see myself as a bad person, just one with issues and a bit broken. But I would've thought she would've saved another family from breaking up or kids getting hurt by getting involved with their dad. When charles looks like the good guy because he only had one long term extra marital affair.

I like that her and rainie made up near the end. Shows she could be soft/forgiving and be mature. And I really hope her charity interactions and how she cared for kids was sincere. Again when people mention all that, others chime in with oh she dropped all her charities and only did it to look better than the brf.

I agree with your opinion of Diana and it largely reflects how I viewed her back in the 1980's and early 1990's. My view of her began to change though when the news of her affair(s) with married men and her shocking assault on her step-mother came to light.



I do have great respect for her coming forward regarding her mental health when she shared her bulimia story. I do wonder had she lived, if she might have been more open about her other mental health concerns: anxiety and depression. It's good to know that she was receiving treatment from psychiatrists over the years. Yes, I do believe that Diana's mental health concerns prompted her sons and daughter-in-law to start the Heads Together campaign.


I'm pleased to see that the long awaited statue will be unveiled soon and I hope that her fans will be happy with the final product.

 

[Denville]

The RF has always employed spin doctors. Yes, I'm sure the job description has changed somewhat over the years but there have always been those employed by the RF to push a certain look, a certain agenda, a certain narrative. And certainly there were spin doctors employed for years who made very good money selling an image of either the saintly and martyred Diana or the evil villainous Diana, whatever best suited their own needs and agendas.

Diana was very much in a position where everyone wanted a piece of her and that's true from her earliest days as the fiancee of the PoW. The trouble was that Diana believed her own hype, to a degree, and her own mental health was precarious enough that she was able to be influenced easily. We all know the paths that led down...frequent falling outs, extreme paranoia, the interview that she would later come to regret, the image of instability. Everyone wanted a piece of her, everyone profited off her. Some profited by the pushing the saintly image, some by pushing the villainous image but still, everyone gained something from spinning the Diana narrative to suit their own purposes.

|who were these people? Diana employed a PR expert called Jane Atkinson and the woman quit after a few months because Diana went her own sweet way and didn't listen to her....Charles employed Mark Bolland to buff up his image after his split from Diana, but I doubt if there were any others. teh "hype" about Diana came mainly from the papers who knew she was a goldmine because she just had a special charm and was also very pretty and photogenic... The tabloids mainly portrayed Diana as beautiful charming and an angel, but if she was being unco-operative, or if they feared the public might get bored with too much gooey coverage of her, they did run negative stories....

 

[_Heather_]

|who were these people? Diana employed a PR expert called Jane Atkinson and the woman quit after a few months because Diana went her own sweet way and didn't listen to her....Charles employed Mark Bolland to buff up his image after his split from Diana, but I doubt if there were any others. teh "hype" about Diana came mainly from the papers who knew she was a goldmine because she just had a special charm and was also very pretty and photogenic... The tabloids mainly portrayed Diana as beautiful charming and an angel, but if she was being unco-operative, or if they feared the public might get bored with too much gooey coverage of her, they did run negative stories....

You're joking, right? There's no possible way that I or anyone else could know the names of everyone involved in 40+ years of Diana hype. Surely you don't truly believe that every charity, every book publisher, every TV special producer, every magazine and newspaper, or even the RF just let the chips fall where they may where Diana was concerned? She was the golden goose and there's just no plausible way that everyone connected with her in any way just shrugged their shoulders and allowed the public to form whatever opinion they wanted to form. There was money to be made, and a lot of it, from manipulating the public's view and impression of Diana and it's inconceivable that those groups didn't see, recognize, and understand that. In no way am I implying that everyone set out to tarnish her. In fact, just the opposite. Some saw value in making her appear saintly, others saw value in making her appear villainous. In either case she was tabloid draw, a money maker, a seller. In today's terms we'd call her the ultimate clickbait. I absolutely agree with you that they ran positive stories until they didn't get what they wanted from her or they thought the public was getting bored with that and then they changed their tone. Everyone around Diana, including Diana herself, blew hot and cold and changed their tunes quite frequently. But we'd be remiss in believing that there weren't people employed in all sorts of industries or positions or organizations who found a large part of their job to be spinning a narrative or manipulating or influencing the public view of Diana both for good and bad.

 

[Denville]

I really dont understand, sorry. I m talking about spin doctors i.e. PR people (usually independent firms) whose job is to buff up someone's public image and to make them popular. Diana DID employ someone to do this during her separation from Charles, and she fell out with the woman in short order. I dont know who these people are in charities or whatever who had a job of " buffing up" Di's public image. Are you saying that Centre point (for example) employed someone to make Diana look good because she was their patron?

 

[_Heather_]

I really dont understand, sorry. I m talking about spin doctors i.e. PR people (usually independent firms) whose job is to buff up someone's public image and to make them popular. Diana DID employ someone to do this during her separation from Charles, and she fell out with the woman in short order. I dont know who these people are in charities or whatever who had a job of " buffing up" Di's public image. Are you saying that Centre point (for example) employed someone to make Diana look good because she was their patron?

I'm saying that while spin doctors certainly are PR people employed to buff up the image of the person employing them, i.e. the lady that Diana fell out with, they are also employed by loads of organizations to buff up the images of those who bring them funds or positive publicity as well as being employed by other organizations to tarnish the images of those that it would serve them well to show as the villain. Spinning a narrative can be positive or negative, it wholly depends on the needs and point of view of those who have employed the PR person.

While I can't say with absolute knowledge that Centrepoint employed those sorts of PR personnel, it is true that often charities that benefit from association with celebrities, well-known persons, royalty, etc. want those people to look as good as possible in the public perception. They absolutely employee PR people to make sure that happens. Same goes for those publishers who handled the Andrew Morton book, the producers who handled her infamous interview, etc. Anyone poised to benefit from a piece of her would have employed highly skilled PR people to push a narrative. Sometimes those are subtle, sometimes they're quite blatant. But public perception of a celebrity or well known figure, including royalty, never just happens. It's all a combination of the images pushed out there by that person's own actions and words and those of everyone who benefits from them.

The lingering fascination with Diana and the strong emotions and opinions that are invoked by that fascination, both positive and negative, are absolutely proof positive that those PR people who surrounded Diana and everyone who made a nickel off of her were very, very good at their jobs.

 

[camelot23ca]

Diana was very much in a position where everyone wanted a piece of her and that's true from her earliest days as the fiancee of the PoW. The trouble was that Diana believed her own hype, to a degree, and her own mental health was precarious enough that she was able to be influenced easily.

I think this is it in a nutshell. Diana wasn't able to maintain a healthy distance between her public persona and who she was as an individual. She wasn't always good at maintaining boundaries and I think her hot and cold relationship with the press was the most unfortunate consequence of this.

Turning a normal, albeit charismatic woman into a phenomenon like what Diana became doesn't happen without the cooperation of the woman in question. That's what I think a lot of people, including one of Diana's own sons, don't understand; not only did Diana believe her own press, but she had to really work hard to keep the whole thing going. Sometimes she didn't like being photographed but sometimes she notified the press in advance of where she'd be. She wanted to be a normal mother but she also wanted the public to be able to see her being a normal mother. She wanted privacy, except when she wanted to tell the world about her personal issues on TV. She probably thought she could keep things under control and that she was making the press work for her, but I think the unfortunate truth was that she was working for them from the start.

The other piece is that Diana died when she was still relatively young and attractive. Had Diana lived, I would hope that she would have found happiness that centred around her sons, her work and her genuine friends, because the alternative wouldn't have been pretty. The behaviours that seem charming and capture the public's imagination when someone is in their 20s and 30s elicit a very different reaction once the same person heads into their 40s and 50s, especially if that person is a woman. Certainly how the press sold Diana would have changed, and I think the more she tried to steer things back to the 'magical/glamorous Diana' narrative, the more brutal they would have been with her.

 

[Denville]

I'm saying that while spin doctors certainly are PR people employed to buff up the image of the person employing them, i.e. the lady that Diana fell out with, they are also employed by loads of organizations to buff up the images of those who bring them funds or positive publicity as well as being employed by other organizations to tarnish the images of those that it would serve them well to show as the villain. Spinning a narrative can be positive or negative, it wholly depends on the needs and point of view of those who have employed the PR person.

While I can't say with absolute knowledge that Centrepoint employed those sorts of PR personnel, it is true that often charities that benefit from association with celebrities, well-known persons, royalty, etc. want those people to look as good as possible in the public perception. They absolutely employee PR people to make sure that happens. Same goes for those publishers who handled the Andrew Morton book, the producers who handled her infamous interview, etc. Anyone poised to benefit from a piece of her would have employed highly skilled PR people to push a narrative. Sometimes those are subtle, sometimes they're quite blatant. But public perception of a celebrity or well known figure, including royalty, never just happens. It's all a combination of the images pushed out there by that person's own actions and words and those of everyone who benefits from them.

The lingering fascination with Diana and the strong emotions and opinions that are invoked by that fascination, both positive and negative, are absolutely proof positive that those PR people who surrounded Diana and everyone who made a nickel off of her were very, very good at their jobs.

OK so it seems you're saying that mostly Diana's image was the creation of all sorts of people who worked for charities she was associated iwth, publishers of books about her, staff in royal households, photographers who took her picture etc etc. So very little of it was "true Diana".

 

[_Heather_]

OK so it seems you're saying that mostly Diana's image was the creation of all sorts of people who worked for charities she was associated iwth, publishers of books about her, staff in royal households, photographers who took her picture etc etc. So very little of it was "true Diana".

In a nutshell, yes. Though I'd include Diana herself as a part of that group. As for the "true Diana" being a piece of the image...I genuinely believe that Diana really didn't know who she really was. She didn't have an easy childhood, her family life was chaotic at best, she certainly had mental health struggles, she was navigating life as Princess of Wales from an age when most girls were enjoying their time in university or even just enjoying their early adulthood. I really believe that at the time of her death Diana was just starting to really find herself, figure out who she was and who she wanted to be, etc. Had she lived, I think we'd have seen a very different Diana emerge as the years went on, as she found a place to do the work she enjoyed, as she matured, as her children grew up, as she became a grandmother, etc. But while in essence, yes, I think the image of Diana was very much a creation of those around her who profited from their association with her, I think she certainly played a role in that creation, too.

 

[Denville]

In a nutshell, yes. Though I'd include Diana herself as a part of that group. As for the "true Diana" being a piece of the image...I genuinely believe that Diana really didn't know who she really was. She didn't have an easy childhood, her family life was chaotic at best, she certainly had mental health struggles, she was navigating life as Princess of Wales from an age when most girls were enjoying their time in university or even just enjoying their early adulthood. I really believe that at the time of her death Diana was just starting to really find herself, figure out who she was and who she wanted to be, etc. Had she lived, I think we'd have seen a very different Diana emerge as the years went on, as she found a place to do the work she enjoyed, as she matured, as her children grew up, as she became a grandmother, etc. But while in essence, yes, I think the image of Diana was very much a creation of those around her who profited from their association with her, I think she certainly played a role in that creation, too.

Ok, it seems a little odd to me.. esp. since Diana clearly IMO had a natural charm that drew people right from her earliest days. The camera loved her, and even as a nursery school teacher, who said very little, dressed in simple clothes and who was going to work or sitting watching Charles playing polo, had something that made much of the public take to her.
But perhaps you're right and she was really only the creation of the press and the various spin doctors.
though it seems to me that when she tried overtly to play the PR game, she was not all that good at it. She got caught in a car with Richard Kay, she argued with her PR expert and the woman resigned,

 

[leene]

She had the X-factor. I think you have this or you don't have it.
Maxima also has the X-factor.
In my opinion that's why every one really liked her in the beginning.
Unfortunately she came from a broken family and she was traumatized because of it.
I also think Charles had a lot of issues. His parents were sometimes away for months, he did not have a good relationship with his father, he was bullied at school etc. Also a very troubled human being. Put two troubled human beings together... and there you have the recipe for a very unhappy marriage.
Both Charles and Diana have good things and bad things.
Almost on her own she did a lot for the acceptance of AIDS patients for example .
Charles was ahead of his time with biological farming etc.
It is such a pity that all of this was not seen.. or al least not enough. The focus has been way too much on their unhappy marriage.
Unfortunately their very bad marriage might also be one of the reasons for the mental problems both their sons have experienced. That is not only because of her untimely death although this was devasting.
I have seen this more often in family's it goes from one generation to the other.
I have good hopes though their children can stop this. I really hope so....
Writing this I feel so sad. How nice it would have been for her and Charles to be good co-parents, enjoy together time with their grandchildren. Maybe she would have found a good partner for herself and more peace with whom she was.

 

[Betsypaige]

Honestly, Diana was a human being with all the ups and downs and positives and negatives that brings with it. She was no saint but neither was she the evil villain. Diana did some incredible work that significantly changed the conversation around AIDS, land mines, etc. and she rightly deserves the praise that drew. However, we all know that Diana was certainly not all sunshine and rainbows. She was manipulative, volatile, immature, and all in all I would think she was incredibly difficult to be around much of the time. I do think that Diana's childhood certainly impacted who and what she became as an adult both for good and bad. That said, while Diana was in many respects an incredible mother, she certainly had her faults in that area, too.

As for why she continues to evoke such strong feelings, well, I think the only answer to that is that the spin-doctors were very, very skilled and did their jobs well. Not just those employed by the RF but those employed by the media, by the publishers of the book, by those charities and causes that benefitted from their association with her, etc. The public saw, read, and heard it all and the messaging both for and against Diana was extremely effective.

We can speculate endlessly about whether or not she'd still be alive if she'd remained married, toed the line, etc. or even if she'd divorced but remained quiet, discreet, and loyal to the RF. No one can ever know the answers to those questions with any certainty. I do truly believe that had she lived, she and Charles would have become friendly and developed a much healthier relationship. It is said that in the months before her death they were beginning to find a bit of friendship and were in a much better place operating as co-parents than they had been as unhappy spouses. We've seen Camilla and Andrew, Andrew and Fergie, and even Anne and Mark become friendly ex-spouses and excellent co-parents. I do believe that, with time and happier second marriages/long-term relationships, Diana and Charles would have fallen into this group as well. No one can know what their boys would have become and how their personalities, actions, and behaviors would differ from the current reality had their mother lived, though it is interesting to speculate. I do think, though, that we can safely conclude that that reality would be much, much different that the reality of today.

They were actually quite good friends..Tina Brown had lunch with Diana just before her death and said this:

“

At the end of Diana's life, she and Charles were on the best terms they'd been for a very long time. Charles got into the habit of dropping in on her at Kensington Palace and they would have tea and a sort of rueful exchange. They even had some laughs together.”

I imagine that William and Harry saw some of this as their parents co-parented them..Unfortunately, when Charles and Diana’s story is told, it’s only the most dramatic side...it’s never mentioned that they had been on good terms for awhile before her death as thar doesn’t suit the agenda that tv/movie producers want to push.