When Did The "Celebrification" of Diana Begin?

cepe · Jan 21, 2016

"celebrification" of the Royals...

IMO when the sons of George III were men behaving badly and brought the BRF into disrepute. Georgian cartoons and pamphlets ridiculed the entire family.

Victoria steadied the ship but her 2 eldest sons also behaved badly. One died and Edward (VII) ended up loved.

Edward VIII preferred role was one of celebrity - less taxing than being king.

And the existing BRF became seen by some as celebrities when HMQ, encouraged by PRince Philip, let the cameras into their private life.

After that, they were all seen as fair game - same as celebrities the world over.

Diana was the icing on the cake.

Curryong · Jan 21, 2016

It is a Catch 22 situation though, isn't it? Do you remove yourself and family completely from the public gaze, except for carefully-staged photo opportunities like past royals, and risk being seen as remote and out of touch or show yourselves as human beings with the same foibles as everyone else, in the process possibly making the Royal family less respected? I do think the Queen and Prince made the right choice in allowing the family to be filmed in the 1960's.

During Diana's lifetime the public became greedy for every detail of her life to be known. The media provided it, feeding the fairytale which was not the truth. It was the War of the Wales, which unfortunately the media pushed to the limits, that IMO tore a rent in the BRF mystique. People became more cynical about what PR they were being fed.

This was followed by the Internet Age, Twitter and Royal forums. After all, if people are sitting anonymously in front of a computer minutely examining a royal's marriage, work ethic, mothering/fathering skills, dress sense, demeanour etc., (just as they do with say the Beckhams or the Kadashiens) that's not doing much for the Royal family concerned or the institution of monarchy, IMO. It does bring it down to a celebrity-like level, I believe. Not that there's much that can be done about it. It's just part of modern life.

Mermaid1962 · Jan 22, 2016

When I look back at her work schedule in the first couple of years, she wasn't in the public all that much; and when she was, she was usually with Prince Charles. At the time, she seemed to be very visible, but I think that's because of all the publications that were out. She cancelled occasions during her first pregnancy with William due to her morning sickness, which was called severe at he time. Then, when she was heavily pregnant, there were several high-profile appearances which were much publicized. After William was born, there was the long vacation at Balmoral, and then there was the shock of her slim form when she reappeared late in the fall.

Oh yes, Prince Charles was considered quite a catch indeed. He really was considered the world's most eligible bachelor. It's difficult to imagine, now that he'll be 70 in less than three years time!

Honeybees said:
To the best of my recollection The Prince of Wales was regarded as quite a catch. His marriage to whomever would have been a big deal historically and I don't believe anyone could have predicted in the early days that Lady Diana Spencer would blossom in the way she did. I also believe it is difficult for some to remember but The late Princess of Wales was out alot and from very early on in her royal career. She was part of some of our daily lives for decades.

Honeybees · Jan 23, 2016

I believe that HRH The Princess of Wales as she was then styled, from her earliest days in the Royal Family did alot of background work, lunches, private visits etc. I think in many ways that it is sad that so much of The Prince of Wales work, which has been incredible gets overlooked and his private life is the main object of interest to most.

Curryong · Jan 23, 2016

Yes, I think publicly they made a very good team and were also good parents. It's just a great shame the private side didn't work out.

Of course Diana became pregnant almost immediately and wasn't terribly well to boot. There were stories that she was absolutely terrified of meeting and greeting the large crowds that gathered to see her in the months following her wedding.

She conquered that however, and as far as people could judge she looked happy, glowing, cheerful, at ease, when meeting people. I always think she looked like a little peach in those very early months, and the camera just loved her, even in the rather unflattering clothing of her early married days. I can remember being startled years later when photos revealed how extremely thin she'd become.

maria-olivia · Jan 23, 2016

Since Andrew Morton's book : Diana her true Story .

nascarlucy · Jan 23, 2016

Once it was known that she and Prince Charles were engaged, then it started a little slow but was full blown by the time they got married.

Duch_Luver_4ever · Apr 24, 2016

There were a few "stages" the courtship/engagement was the beginning, but part of that was due to being yet another suitor for PC, but then she took it and ran, those early pictures she just draws you in, like Lord Attenborough said in his documentary, people were taken with her immediately, with young boys/men going ga-ga over her at the start. (I know for me it was luv at first sight in Nov 1980, in her blue sweater and skirt one night walking by the TV during the evening news).

Then it built until the 1983 tours where it went ballistic, that was really the "start" IMO of it, the US tour was the "Dynasty Di" era. That's where the clothes and jewels took off, and women started to be the main fans of her in broad terms.

In a documentary on that time theres a bittersweet comment now,by two girls waiting for her to appear in Washington along the lines of "Shes so thin thats sick, I wish that was me" little did we know then the reason why...

Then the "War of the Wales" was a more infamous, period, and lastly the separation and removal of her guards started the final phase where it was paparazzi overload and finally her humanitarian projects.

that and a quid gets you on the bus^^

Denville · May 18, 2016

Osipi said:
When really thinking about it, the era of Di Mania came about at the same time the Internet was expanding, cell phones were starting to become a reality for the average person's use and news reporting on conflicts in Irwere inundated from all angles. The public felt they really knew her and when she tragically died, suffered from shell shock which I believe caused mass hysteria to some degree.

fingertips when we load our browsers.

Gosh I'd have to say no. Diana died before the internet was really big. Cell phones yes but no the internet. and I think that really from the begining of her dating C and marrying him, she was instantly popular - it was just something about her..

Countessmeout · May 18, 2016

Yes, internet wasn't really considered mainstream until 1998/99. Heck when she died, majority of cell phones were massive with big antenas, they started shrinking around the time she died. Definitely not the 'cell phone' era now where people text and take photos and such.

Duc_et_Pair · May 18, 2016

It started with Diana and Sarah in the 1980's. Before then the European royal families, think about Queen Juliana, Queen Fabiola, Queen Sofía, Grand-Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte, etc. were so much more stern and sober and everything was so far from celebbies and fashion at all. It culminated in the public-fought War of the Waleses. There was no distance anymore. There was no difference between a bitch-fight of two "stars" in the celebrity magazines and this nasty period in the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales. Every distance, every reverence, every dignity, all was thrown overboard. Very sad and damaging. Never in modern era it became more clear that monarchy was a vaudeville full of spin.

Countessmeout · May 18, 2016

XeniaCasaraghi · May 21, 2016

Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?

Duc_et_Pair · May 21, 2016

It never ended and it will never end. Sadly the line between royalty and celebrity has become thinner and thinner. There are media who bring royalty news under the general tab "showbizz"... which is telling.

COUNTESS · May 21, 2016

When the world realized that there was nothing special about royalty (a made up affectation), they are no more special than others. But since they have amassed great wealth and visibility, they became celebrities. And, today, they are showbiz.

Denville · Jul 31, 2016

not really. But Diana did take the RF into soemthing close to showbiz...

Roslyn · Jul 31, 2016

Well it is arguable that their primary purpose is to entertain.

Curryong · Jul 31, 2016

The media treats royalty like some section of showbiz celebrity, yes, though I'd argue that they don't do that when reporting on the Queen and Prince Philip's lives, for example. (They were lucky really that they were young at a time when the British press behaved in a very different way.)

One of the main differences, of course, is that there are very very few celebrities who appear in their mother's arms as new babies on the front pages of newspapers and magazines and who then have a relentless spotlight on them every year of their lives from then on until extreme old age and death, after which their funeral is covered by the national (and sometimes international) media. That's the fate of many senior royals and their heirs.

When Diana joined the Royal family a phenomenon that became known as 'Di mania' began, and I do think that was something very different from the huge popularity the Queen and Princess Margaret enjoyed as young women. It was as if the media fed off Diana and couldn't get enough of her, from her engagement onwards. At least some of this was due to the fact that no Prince of Wales, direct heir to the British throne, had wed for almost 120 years, so there was enormous interest already.

AdmirerUS · Jul 31, 2016

I have always thought the photo of her at daycare, child on her hip, sun behind her, revealing her legs was the moment that the press transformed her into a thing rather than a person. It was all downhill from there.

Winnie · Jul 31, 2016

Duc_et_Pair said:
It never ended and it will never end. Sadly the line between royalty and celebrity has become thinner and thinner. There are media who bring royalty news under the general tab "showbizz"... which is telling.

As far as Diana, it will end when the many are no longer alive that were here when she died. My children vaguely remember her and were never obsessed with her [being American] and my grandchildren [all in their 20s] don't care who or what she did. Me, I remember her well and was in sorrow due to how young she was leaving her sons motherless. To me she was never a celebrity but just lovely daughter-in-law to Queen. Tragedy, of course, but never saint- like as many tried to portray even then.

Denville · Aug 1, 2016

Roslyn said:
Well it is arguable that their primary purpose is to entertain.

NO, their primary purpose is ot promote their country, as the "first family" by doing representational, diplomatic and charity work...Diana did foolishly slip over the line into "celebrity", talking about her private life on TV and mixing with "celebs" who were in that world.. Even though many of them did try like say Clive James to talk her out of doing things like that. Others like Carling's wife, when Diana flirted with her husband, reacted like a typical celebrity and made a public drama out of it... and that was a big mistake on Dis' part...

AdmirerUS said:
I have always thought the photo of her at daycare, child on her hip, sun behind her, revealing her legs was the moment that the press transformed her into a thing rather than a person. It was all downhill from there.

A thing?? Hardly. it was a bit of an intrusive shot, but it was harldy enough to make her a "thing rather than a person". Diana was lovely, she had charm and charisma and had the press been reasonable, and had she herself not collaborated and used her charm against the RF, it would have been a great thing that she was so well loved nad popular...

Winnie said:
As Me, I remember her well and was in sorrow due to how young she was leaving her sons motherless. To me she was never a celebrity but just lovely daughter-in-law to Queen. Tragedy, of course, but never saint- like as many tried to portray even then.

I am not sure. Of course as time passes, less people will remember her as soemone they saw on TV a lot or maybe even met up with once or twice. But she's a fascinating figure, there are bios of her, stuff on youtube etc.. She has a lot of fans, and Im sure she will always have people who are interested in her.. like Marilyn Monroe..
I remember having a really sad moment a few months after her death, when I was in a church, can't remember where now and a child had written in the prayer slips, "Pray for Will and Harry who have lost their Mummy".. it really choked me..

Denville · Aug 5, 2016

XeniaCasaraghi said:
Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?

It didn't "end" as such. there are plenty of people who really idolise Diana still to a ridiciulous degree. And many who still love and admire her, even if they are aware of her faults...

MARG · Aug 5, 2016

XeniaCasaraghi said:
Another good question is when did it end and people started to question the Saint Diana image and delve deeper into the real person?

Denville said:

. . . . . Even though many of them did try like say Clive James to talk her out of doing things like that. Others like Carling's wife, when Diana flirted with her husband, reacted like a typical celebrity and made a public drama out of it... and that was a big mistake on Dis' part...

Denville said:

It didn't "end" as such. there are plenty of people who really idolise Diana still to a ridiculous degree. And many who still love and admire her, even if they are aware of her faults...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Xenia, it will never end. The celebrification of Diana was tacky and tasteless, but the canonisation is offensive. We still see people here and elsewhere who are willing to downgrade Diana's string of adulterous affairs as if somehow she was above the tenets of common decency. Conversely, every one of her lovers has been viciously vilified for their kiss and tell books or interviews when they got kicked to the kerb (or in Hasnet Khan's case, ending the relationship) yet Diana had 'written' or spoken publicly about their affairs, even doing the 'Panorama' interview which was the supreme example of Diana buying into her own celebrity.

Blaming Julia Carling for being hurt, distraught and very, very angry at Diana's affair with her husband when the ink wasn't even dry on their marriage licence is a brilliant example of giving Diana a free pass. The only difference between Julia and the wives of Diana's other married lovers was that Julia was a strong, confident, TV personality, a "Celebrity" no less, so when she was publicly humiliated she publicly fought back, kicked out her cheating husband and publicly named Diana as the reason for the ensuing divorce.

Diana no better or worse than any other 'Celebrity' but even before her separation she knew she would always be in the public eye, she knew she was photographed everywhere, she knew a picture was worth more than a thousand words in dozens of tabloids, and yet she continued to play out her life like episodes of Celebrity Wives.

What's happened to Diana's men? | Express Yourself | Comment | Daily Express

Curryong · Aug 5, 2016

I don't think anyone excuses Diana's affairs with married men. However, do these married men, the Oliver Hoares, the Will Carlings, bear no responsibility for their own actions? Were they mere putty in the hands of an enchantress, apparently unable to speak up or move away or even think of their wives as soon as Diana came into view? She apparently seduced them all, without a word of protest from these males, poor lambs!

And Charles's adulterous affair with a married woman? Is that too, 'beyond the bounds of common decency?' You see, what's OK for the gander is not OK for the goose for some. Camilla's role in helping to unravel the Wales's marriage is excused every bit as much by fierce Charles/Cam defenders who deeply dislike Diana as she has ever been by those who admire her.

Yes, smooth the Camilla business over, sweep it all under the rug, and just let us just perpetually concentrate on Diana's affairs and mistakes and misjudgements and mental condition and unimportance to her charities, plus apparently her complete insignificance to people nowadays.

Yes, Diana was a 'celebrity' all right, a celebrity who performed hundreds of engagements every year, in wind, rain, and shine. She was a 'celebrity' who performed royal duties for years, without, it must be said, much audible support from her husband (except at the beginning) or his family.

Here was a celebrity who brought new focus and a spotlight on many things, including hospices and AIDS and landline campaigns, and valuable publicity to the British fashion industry at the same time. She also brought new informality to a royal family who were often thought dull and stiff and formal. She also bore two boys, one of whom may well become King one day in his turn. Plenty there to celebrate if you want to contemplate Diana's 'celebrity'!

Denville · Aug 5, 2016

well the reason I brought it up was to say that there are still people who are very very obssessed Diana fans.. who will still see Diana as an angel, no matter what, but that in general, I think her fans see her as a human being who did soem things wrong, and got many things right.. not as a super being. And while people may be a bit more cynical now, in general I think that fascinating as Di was, mostly people were fond of her but didn't idolise her.. during her lifetime. She was clever at putting herself forward well but nobody can truly be seen as perfect.
Curryong yes she did do a great job as Princess, and I think she did bring a speical magic to the job, that no other royal woman has brought to it.. before or since. But then again you could say that most royal women have done the job of performing engagements, with or without support from the RF or their husbands, and been deserving of praise...It is what they're paid for, and Diana didn't do hundreds more engagements than any other royal lady...
But Really, I agree with you that her private life was hardly soemthing to villify her about, or if it is, then Charles too should be villified or other royals who have had affairs.
I dont see the point of attacking either of them for trying to find some consolation for an unhappy marriage.. and I can't quite see how Diana's affairs are terrible, but charles' are Ok, OR that Charles's affairs are (as some royal watchers seem to see it) evidence that he is a terrible human being.. whereas Di's affairs are either "not proven" or somehow Ok.
I think that both of them were guilty of hurting other people in their affairs, I dont think that he considered enough how his relationships with Cam and Kanga Tryon may have hurt their chidlren, or that even teh easy going Andrew PB got fed up with tolerating his affair with Cam when he (Andrew) wanted to be free to remarry..
And Diana didn't consider that her affair with Hoare was bothering his wife, or her flirtation with Carling... She was certianly guilty IMO of being too intense, and demanding too much of a lover, when he had commitments elsewhere.
But I cna't see that Di spoke of their relationships publicly while they were villified for kiss and tell books etc. She only spoke of one affair publicly, and that was after J Hewitt had already outed the relationship and he was completely at fault for "kissing and telling." her other lovers have not spoken of their relationships at all, except for Hasnat Khan, who was forced to at the inquest and who didn't get involved iwth her until she was getting a divorce...
She was reasonably discreet in her love affairs and managed to keep them out of the press, except when she lost her head over Hoare, and when Hewitt outed the affair.
and overall whatever her faults, I think she DID do her royal job well, she was a good Mother and she tired her best to be a good wife. It was not her fault that she was ill equipped for many aspects of royal life, or for winning Charles' heart when it was already given...

MARG · Aug 6, 2016

I think this discussion is better continued on the Charles and Diana thread.

I specifically mentioned Diana getting a free pass when her married and single lovers didn't and still don't. This has nothing to do with Charles, Camilla, Kanga, etc. It is about the celebrification of Diana, how she bought into her own press and how there is a glaring double standard regarding her lovers and how they became unwitting "celebrities" for all the wrong reasons.

I do not for one moment dismiss her charitable work, BUT that is not what this thread is about and, more importantly, her charity work cannot realistically be a considered a mitigating factor for her affairs.

By mentioning her affairs I am not denigrating her or singling her out. I merely remarked on the unfairness of the way the men were and are still treated as opposed to how Diana is treated. They were all adults and they all made their own choices.

Denville · Aug 6, 2016

what men? Her "married lovers" are only Oliver Hoare who has not tlaked about their affair and Will carling who probably was not her lover and who explicitly denied an affair...So how are they being treated unfairly?

MARG · Aug 6, 2016

To be honest it is irrelevant if they were married or single, they have all been hammered. I was talking about Will Carling and, if he can be identified as one of her lovers at the inquest without legal challenge, I believe that settles that. Denying it to the media is one thing, a court of law is quite another.

You only have to read the threads that cover her various lovers and read what has been written about books, articles and interviews they have contributed to. People seem to forget that it was their lives too and, as such, they have as much right to talk about it as Diana had. If being one of Diana's lovers brought them celebrity in the negative or the positive, they had and still have the right to respond.

Curryong · Aug 6, 2016

No-one on the Diana threads has stated that Oliver Hoare or Carling have no right to be heard. Nor have I read of them being 'hammered' in the way you describe. James Hewitt and his motivations have been widely discussed, (he was unmarried) but as far as I can see Carling barely comes up in conversations online or otherwise.

Neither Hoare nor Carling have written books about Diana, unlike Hewitt, and what we have read of them have been just titbits through the prism of others like Ken Wharfe. If either had an affair they were IMO as culpable as Diana was in getting involved with them. Both she and they were culpable.

However, these men weren't innocents. They knew the media sniffed around trying to get stories on Diana, (one of the most famous women in the world) so must surely have been prepared for some kind of disclosure by the press and subsequent criticism, (though, as I've said, I've read few comments on either man, bad or good.)

And why is Diana responsible for the loss, if any, of these men's reputations or for people criticising their actions? As I've stated in my previous post, if a husband commits adultery does he bear no responsibility if the woman concerned happens to be famous?

And No, I realise it's never the right time, the right thread, the right anything to get to the nitty gritty of Camilla's motivations and part in the destruction of Diana and Charles's marriage. It's remarkable really.

Denville · Aug 6, 2016

MARG said:
To be honest it is irrelevant if they were married or single, they have all been hammered. I

You only have to read the threads that cover her various lovers and read what has been written about books, articles and interviews they have contributed to. People seem to forget that it was their lives too and, as such, they have as much right to talk about it as Diana had. If being one of Diana's lovers brought them celebrity in the negative or the positive, they had and still have the right to respond.

No they dont. It is IMO horrible behaviour. I dont know whether Will C was her lover or not, he certainly was involved in a heavy flirtation with her, but he has as far as i know explicitly denied an affair whch IMO is what he should do.
what sort of man makes a career move out of telling about his affair with a woman?? esp a married woman?
I dont know what you mean by "they have all been hammered." Who hammered them? what does that mean? Have they been harmed? I dont think so.
I dont really know what you mean about the inquest. After denying his affair with Di, (if it happened) he is harldy going to raise the issue again..

When Did The "Celebrification" of Diana Begin?

Majesty

Majesty

Majesty

Courtier

Majesty

Majesty

Serene Highness

Gentry

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent

Imperial Majesty

Heir Apparent

Majesty

Majesty

Heir Presumptive

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Majesty

Imperial Majesty

Similar threads