Ysbel,
It was, and always has been, my position that neither 'side' was inherently better or worse behaved than t'other. My sense of loyalty to Her Majesty and her Heir has never once wavered. However, I truly believed that Diana engendered a tsunami of difference, i.e. difference of opinion and attitude. To my observation, the Palace and its attendants and lackeys were utterly confounded by her popularity, and, yes, it must be said, adoration, in some quarters. To whit: they were completely at a loss as to how to countermand her prescience and appeal, even in those few instances where they could even begin to comprehend it. That they couldn't accept, much less inhabit, a radically altered world which worshipped celebrity in all of its manifestations, was its major shortcoming. In the final analysis, there are highly paid advisers to advise and inform on social aberrations and indulgences.
From my perspective, I could almost hear the tumbrils rumbling, and was most anxious that Her Majesty would survive, unscathed. In my long view, it was a near run thing, and although I'm not a fan of his, Tony Blair did a great deal to assist in maintaining the status quo in this instance. Both in England and Australia I was horrified to hear the slanders and anger directed at The Queen and her son over Diana's ghastly death, which I always felt was manifestly unfair. Neither of them, no matter what, would have wished her dead!
Still, I believe that Diana was an immense threat to the English so-called Establishment. A.N. Wilson, in The New York Times, commented that if she continues to rock the boat, "the Establishment will simply get rid of her, as they got rid of Edward and Mrs Simpson". The irony here, is, of course, that the Spencers were much more legitmate 'Establishment' than all of the nouveaux and faux-gentry which surrounded the Crown, especially those who inhabited Camilla's world. Its interests, invested in the Crown's patronage, was seriously challenged at a mundane, social level, and therefore Diana's actions were deemed insupportable. The advent of Diana relegated the almost religious reverence which many held for the Royal Family into a more secular milieu.
In an historical sense, the quasi-religious mystique of royalty came full circle with Diana. Monarchy used to be based on divine right. But just as monarchy, traditionally, used religious trappings to justify its rule, modern celebrity has a way of slipping into a form of popular religion, hitherto quite unacknowledged and unappreciated in its power.
In this sense, Diana evolved into a sacrificial symbol in several ways. First she became the patron saint of victims, the sick, the discriminated against, the homeless. Then, partly through her real suffering at the hands of a rigidly formal family trained to play rigidly formal public roles, and partly through her shrewd manipulation of the press, Diana herself projected a compelling image of victimhood. Women in unhappy marriages identified with her; so did outsiders of one kind or another, ethnic, sexual or social. Like many religious idols, she was openly abused and ridiculed, in her case by the same press that stoked the public worship of her. And finally, she became the ultimate victim of her own fame.
I remember some people, devoted monarchists all, bewailing Diana's death. "How could she leave?" For the last 16 years, on the world's stage, Diana had embodied Britain for much of the world. She showed that despite the loss of empire and influence and the heavy weight of history, the country was capable of youth and vigour and immense charm, still. By blood alone and her impeccable lineage, she was an endorsement of all which Britain had been and still could be. If one were to investigate such things, Diana Spencer was a much better bred Englishwoman than anyone else in the Royal Family.
But what mattered most was that Diana was truly the world's princess, a title which no other could ever hope to attain, and no monarch ever has. How many nations embraced expressions of shock and dismay and mourning in public, far beyond diplomacy's or mere politeness' requirements?
There have been many changes for the better in House of Windsor, and 'tis my considered opinion that they are for the better, and that they are due to the late Princess of Wales.
Tina Brown's book endorses this view. Tina Brown's book, though, does not do this at the expense of Diana's ex-royal-in-laws. On the whole, I admire it because it's approps, and casts no heavy stones.
.
