A New Diana?

[Mbruno]

“So unless a royal for whatever reason makes a truly global impact, and that is doubtful, there cannot be another Diana, with the same global press coverage.” it’s possble but it takes one special gifted human being.
Also yes I believe she would have had the same impact. Diana was special.

It is interesting that many modern-day royals like Maxima, Mary or Mathilde are probably more active internationally (through their association with UN agencies) than Diana was, but that seems to fly under the radar. And, of course, Queen Silvia also has a major international humanitarian role with her World Childhood Foundation.

The thing about Diana is that her impact should not be measured in purely quantitative terms, but rather in terms of the perception that she genuinely cared about and connected with people on a personal level, which was unusual for royals at the time. From a purely numerical point of view, Charles for example, with his Prince's Trust and similar offsprings in other Commonwealth countries, has probably made a much bigger impact on people's lives than Diana ever has, but he is perceived by public opinion merely as a "professional philanthropist" while being personally out of touch and emotionally disconnected from the people his charities may assist.

And, yes, I think it is true that Diana was charming. The impression she made on unsuspected people like the Reagans or the Mitterands, as mentioned by other posters, confirms her "star quality". It is sad that Charles was one of the few people not to appreciate it !

 

[Osipi]

Well people sometimes do not like to think about her real life problems. Sucks to say but a lot look to Diana to escape into fantasy and that in part was the image the media public and Diana made. Who cares if they still call her "Princess" Diana. I call her that because all though she wasn't a born princess and royal she seemed more royals than the actual royals. Princess Diana!!!

I prefer to see the person that Diana actually was. Those that use Diana to "escape" into fantasy can do the same with Disney fairy tale concept of princesses and royalty too. Its not seeing the royal world as it really is

One person that did care about being called Princess Diana was Diana herself. She would correct people on that.

I think I'm done with this conversation. I prefer to discuss the "real" Diana.

 

[Kitty1224]

Would Diana have had the same impact if she were a Princess of Luxembourg or Liechtesntein?

I believe so. She had something special about her. Just like MJ if he debuted now.

 

[Empress Merel]

Maybe when said Princess dies (in a tragic way). There are few things more capable of swaying people's mind and glorification than death.

 

[Muhler]

It is interesting that many modern-day royals like Maxima, Mary or Mathilde are probably more active internationally (through their association with UN agencies) than Diana was, but that seems to fly under the radar. And, of course, Queen Silvia also has a major international humanitarian role with her World Childhood Foundation.

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. But it was also sheer necessity. Diana got international coverage, so she had to act the role - and importantly she could act the role.
Another thing that must be contributed to Diana, was that she redefined the way royals could interact with the public. Giving it a more personal touch with a closer contact with people, while the rest of the BRF at the time - and indeed most other monarchies - maintained a more aloof distance to the public.
That approach had almost universally been adopted by most other younger royals by 2008.

However, and this is important, the world has changed totally since 1990.
In 1990 most monarchies, except the BRF, had mainly a local impact, so there was little incentive to "go Diana". Especially as the royals who were destined to have an international profile later on had not even met their husbands/wives yet.
But today in 2018 the world had become much more internationally oriented, global if you prefer, than in 1990. Royals like Queens Silvia, Maxima and Mathilde and Crown Princesses like Mary and Victoria to mention some, now act directly on behalf of their parliaments. They have become their countries official faces in regards to long term humanitarian issues.
Diana did not have a similar official political role in her time. While large segments of the political segment no doubt applauded her, it is not my impression that she was a part of deliberate national humanitarian political strategy.
And it is still my impression that while the BRF are used to represent Britain very much in general, they are rarely used as political tools in specific areas - as are royals in other monarchies.
That change has come about very much out of necessity. In most countries, in an increasing global world, you use whatever means at disposal to promote the interests and the standing of your country. Royals are a convenient tool in that respect. And if it happens to be topics the royals can support wholeheartedly as well, it's even better.

And with that I return to my previous question: How would Diana fare today, in comparison to other royals who are out there on the international scene?

Today most of Diana's competitors have university degrees behind them. Considerable work experience and being older when they entered the royal scene, generally be more mature.
Not discounting Diana's talents, which are undeniable, I'm far from certain she would come out on top today on anything resembling the level back in 1990.
- Even the English/American based press has become much more globally oriented and they have serious news-competitors now. Arabic networks, Hispanic networks, Chinese networks and now also increasingly African networks and so on.
To the extent that these networks will even focus on European royalty, they may not find that the BRF and as such a contemporary Diana, would automatically be the most interesting person to cover.

 

[Kitty1224]

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. But it was also sheer necessity. Diana got international coverage, so she had to act the role - and importantly she could act the role.
Another thing that must be contributed to Diana, was that she redefined the way royals could interact with the public. Giving it a more personal touch with a closer contact with people, while the rest of the BRF at the time - and indeed most other monarchies - maintained a more aloof distance to the public.
That approach had almost universally been adopted by most other younger royals by 2008.

However, and this is important, the world has changed totally since 1990.
In 1990 most monarchies, except the BRF, had mainly a local impact, so there was little incentive to "go Diana". Especially as the royals who were destined to have an international profile later on had not even met their husbands/wives yet.
But today in 2018 the world had become much more internationally oriented, global if you prefer, than in 1990. Royals like Queens Silvia, Maxima and Mathilde and Crown Princesses like Mary and Victoria to mention some, now act directly on behalf of their parliaments. They have become their countries official faces in regards to long term humanitarian issues.
Diana did not have a similar official political role in her time. While large segments of the political segment no doubt applauded her, it is not my impression that she was a part of deliberate national humanitarian political strategy.
And it is still my impression that while the BRF are used to represent Britain very much in general, they are rarely used as political tools in specific areas - as are royals in other monarchies.
That change has come about very much out of necessity. In most countries, in an increasing global world, you use whatever means at disposal to promote the interests and the standing of your country. Royals are a convenient tool in that respect. And if it happens to be topics the royals can support wholeheartedly as well, it's even better.

And with that I return to my previous question: How would Diana fare today, in comparison to other royals who are out there on the international scene?

Today most of Diana's competitors have university degrees behind them. Considerable work experience and being older when they entered the royal scene, generally be more mature.
Not discounting Diana's talents, which are undeniable, I'm far from certain she would come out on top today on anything resembling the level back in 1990.
- Even the English/American based press has become much more globally oriented and they have serious news-competitors now. Arabic networks, Hispanic networks, Chinese networks and now also increasingly African networks and so on.
To the extent that these networks will even focus on European royalty, they may not find that the BRF and as such a contemporary Diana, would automatically be the most interesting person to cover.

So Diana influenced other European monarchies. Wow thats amazing.

 

[Elan]

One item that isn't highlighted much about Diana is that there was a certain artistic quality about her, evident in ways more than others. Example; she had quite a good ear for melody and composition. I don't mean just her Pop music taste, but her taste in classical was much higher than the average person's vocabulary. Her skills on piano were basic, yet good enough to perform Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto with conviction.

If cast away on a deserted island she said she'd prefer to have: Mozart's Mass in C minor, requiems by Faure, Verdi as well. Most professional musicians do not cite such pieces.

Fwiw it was Diana who chose the choral version of this piece by Holst at her wedding :

 

[Kitty1224]

One item that isn't highlighted much about Diana is that there was a certain artistic quality about her, evident in ways more than others. Example; she had quite a good ear for melody and composition. I don't mean just her Pop music taste, but her taste in classical was much higher than the average person's vocabulary. Her skills on piano were basic, yet good enough to perform Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto with conviction.

If cast away on a deserted island she said she'd prefer to have: Mozart's Mass in C minor, requiems by Faure, Verdi as well. Most professional musicians do not cite such pieces.

Fwiw it was Diana who chose the choral version of this piece by Holst at her wedding :

Wow never thought about her artistic quality about her.

 

[Muhler]

So Diana influenced other European monarchies. Wow thats amazing.

Absolutely.
In regards to a more personal interaction with the public and in the way she took up international humanitarian issues. In that way she was clearly an inspiration, where other royal families have learned, adopted and adapted their own way of doing their job.

However, I will also claim that they have to a large extent overtaken her. Diana's present day competitors are much better organized in handling, presenting and using the influence they have on international humanitarian issues. They also co-operate and at least to a considerable degree seem to have more or less unofficially divided the areas between them. - With consideration to the political will of the national parliaments, who also support their royals.
It's a political interaction, where the individual royal, usually one or two per country, work for a specific humanitarian issue, which is very much supported by the national parliaments and their whole administrative apparatus, with full political and media support. It has in other words become very professional.
That was something Diana did not have. She no doubt had considerable political sympathy, but she did not have a systematic political backing from the British Parliament.

As for Diana's ability to interact with the public on a much more personal level. That has been almost universally adopted by the primary royals in de facto all other European monarchies. And just like Diana, the royals who are best at this are naturals, but just like Diana, they have also grown into that role and that way to approach the public. Some with more success than others...
There is also a deliberate PR-approach that has been adopted by most monarchies and to a considerable degree professionalized.
Diana did not have a professional PR apparatus supporting her more personal approach to the public, she had at best limited support from the rest of the BRF.
In 1990 most monarchies had a press secretary and that was about it, who supplied the most basic info to the press. Today most monarchies have a professional PR-office in place.

So other monarchies watched and learned and after initial trials and sometimes errors most of them now have a basically professional approach in place that is suitable to their countries and their cultures.

 

[Kitty1224]

I agree that the era in which a royal superstar would receive publicity and attention like Diana has ended. To be honest I do believe that sort of media attention was starting to fade prior to her death and will not likely return for the reasons that you have stated.

What's a royal superstar?

 

[Kitty1224]

I don't think we will be seeing something like the "Diana phenomenon" again. It was the product of the pre Internet/social media age where print media and television still dominated - this means that there's now some greater control over media presentation than there was in the past along with greater critisim of the paparazzi - ironically Diana's death was a big factor in this. The other difference was that obsession with celebrity in the late 1980s and 1990s was more intensely focused on a smaller group of individuals instead of the wider diffusion we have today, again thanks in no small part to the Internet. The other main reason is that no modern RF is going to let somone who was clearly troubled and unwell in retrospect marry into the family and certainly not so young - Diana's glamour and looks got us interested but it was her character flaws and later intrigues that kept us all hooked to this whole tadwry mess

I still believe there can be another phenomenon in years to come. Of course it will be harder to be globally significant and above all the diffusion in today's media but then again no one thought Diana would become a phenomenon back in the day. Also I miss print media and magazines because it made the famous people much more alluring and mysterious.

 

[Kitty1224]

Absolutely.
In regards to a more personal interaction with the public and in the way she took up international humanitarian issues. In that way she was clearly an inspiration, where other royal families have learned, adopted and adapted their own way of doing their job.

However, I will also claim that they have to a large extent overtaken her. Diana's present day competitors are much better organized in handling, presenting and using the influence they have on international humanitarian issues. They also co-operate and at least to a considerable degree seem to have more or less unofficially divided the areas between them. - With consideration to the political will of the national parliaments, who also support their royals.
It's a political interaction, where the individual royal, usually one or two per country, work for a specific humanitarian issue, which is very much supported by the national parliaments and their whole administrative apparatus, with full political and media support. It has in other words become very professional.
That was something Diana did not have. She no doubt had considerable political sympathy, but she did not have a systematic political backing from the British Parliament.

As for Diana's ability to interact with the public on a much more personal level. That has been almost universally adopted by the primary royals in de facto all other European monarchies. And just like Diana, the royals who are best at this are naturals, but just like Diana, they have also grown into that role and that way to approach the public. Some with more success than others...
There is also a deliberate PR-approach that has been adopted by most monarchies and to a considerable degree professionalized.
Diana did not have a professional PR apparatus supporting her more personal approach to the public, she had at best limited support from the rest of the BRF.
In 1990 most monarchies had a press secretary and that was about it, who supplied the most basic info to the press. Today most monarchies have a professional PR-office in place.

So other monarchies watched and learned and after initial trials and sometimes errors most of them now have a basically professional approach in place that is suitable to their countries and their cultures.

Wow very informative!!! Diana truly was one of a kind. Love that she in a set the standards for royal wives after her. I wonder if we will have someone else set a standard to something else in the future. I will say none of the female wives will ever have a phenomenon and be an international powerhouse like Diana. I think she was the best at soft diplomacy compared to the woman in other royal houses.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I would think no royal family especially not the BRF would want another Diana; another Princess Grace?? Maybe
Too many people thought Kate was the new Diana and she has turned out to be the anti-Diana; I hope Meghan proves to be the same.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The thing about Diana is that her impact should not be measured in purely quantitative terms, but rather in terms of the perception that she genuinely cared about and connected with people on a personal level, which was unusual for royals at the time. From a purely numerical point of view, Charles for example, with his Prince's Trust and similar offsprings in other Commonwealth countries, has probably made a much bigger impact on people's lives than Diana ever has, but he is perceived by public opinion merely as a "professional philanthropist" while being personally out of touch and emotionally disconnected from the people his charities may assist.

I would disagree. As it happens I know someone personally who has benefitted from the Prince's Trust, met Charles, and this person does not describe Charles as "personally out of touch and emotionally disconnected from the people his charities may assist". I continue to be startled that building up Diana seems to always be at the expense of Charles. Strange.

And, yes, I think it is true that Diana was charming. The impression she made on unsuspected people like the Reagans or the Mitterands, as mentioned by other posters, confirms her "star quality". It is sad that Charles was one of the few people not to appreciate it !

From all the evidence he was very proud of her 'star quality', like most men are regarding their glamorous wives in my experience. However Diana began playing one-up-man-ship games with Charles, openly disrespecting him. That somewhat soured the brew for him, I guess.

Wow very informative!!! Diana truly was one of a kind. Love that she in a set the standards for royal wives after her. I wonder if we will have someone else set a standard to something else in the future. I will say none of the female wives will ever have a phenomenon and be an international powerhouse like Diana. I think she was the best at soft diplomacy compared to the woman in other royal houses.

No married-in royal wife will ever be able to muscle her way past her royal husband that's for certain I do believe. Plus there is a far more rigorous code-of-conduct now (or maybe they just went back to the old code with some updates) that every royal wife is expected to adhere to. Professional demeanor is now expected. If someone started behaving now like Diana behaved vis-a-vis the BRF I wonder what would happen? Do they have fail-safe checks and balances to avert such?

I would think no royal family especially not the BRF would want another Diana; another Princess Grace?? Maybe.

Too many people thought Kate was the new Diana and she has turned out to be the anti-Diana; I hope Meghan proves to be the same.

Agree!

I think every RF now vets carefully and hopes they don't find themselves with a 'loose cannon' as was Diana.

As for Princess Grace, I think she is the standard of one classy lady. Hands down winner!

 

[Kitty1224]

I would think no royal family especially not the BRF would want another Diana; another Princess Grace?? Maybe
Too many people thought Kate was the new Diana and she has turned out to be the anti-Diana; I hope Meghan proves to be the same.

Sorry but Grace was like "Diana" before Diana. Grace was very popular very famous.

 

[Mbruno]

I would think no royal family especially not the BRF would want another Diana; another Princess Grace?? Maybe
Too many people thought Kate was the new Diana and she has turned out to be the anti-Diana; I hope Meghan proves to be the same.

I don't think Kate is "the anti-Diana", but she is definitely very different from Diana, which is hardly surprising considering that they have little in common in terms of personality, family background, education, life experience, etc. I also think that Kate's goals in life and her long-term "game plan" so to speak are somewhat different from Diana's.

Kate is very discreet IMHO and, right now, focused primarily on her family (which includes , frm her point of view, her parents and siblings), but she will (hopefully) have a long time to forge an identity for herself as Duchess of Cambridge, Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen, which is something that Diana didn't have in her rather short life. It will be interesting to see how she evolves over time.

As for Meghan, my fear is that she may be tempted to be "the new Diana", or rather the post-modern, 21st century, updated version of Diana, especially when Harry is widely considered to be the heir to Diana's "touch". She will run into trouble very quickly if she does that as the world has changed and, as other posters have stated, there is no demand for a "new Diana".

 

[Kitty1224]

I don't think Kate is "the anti-Diana", but she is definitely very different from Diana, which is hardly surprising considering that they have little in common in terms of personality, family background, education, life experience, etc. I also think that Kate's goals in life and her long-term "game plan" so to speak are somewhat different from Diana's.

Kate is very discreet IMHO and, right now, focused primarily on her family (which includes , frm her point of view, her parents and siblings), but she will (hopefully) have a long time to forge an identity for herself as Duchess of Cambridge, Princess of Wales and, eventually, Queen, which is something that Diana didn't have in her rather short life. It will be interesting to see how she evolves over time.

As for Meghan, my fear is that she may be tempted to be "the new Diana", or rather the post-modern, 21st century, updated version of Diana, especially when Harry is widely considered to be the heir to Diana's "touch". She will run into trouble very quickly if she does that as the world has changed and, as other posters have stated, there is no demand for a "new Diana".

I can see that with Markle lol

 

[jacqui24]

As for Meghan, my fear is that she may be tempted to be "the new Diana", or rather the post-modern, 21st century, updated version of Diana, especially when Harry is widely considered to be the heir to Diana's "touch". She will run into trouble very quickly if she does that as the world has changed and, as other posters have stated, there is no demand for a "new Diana".

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.

 

[Missjersey]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. She was fantastic when it came to drawing attention to areas that sorely needed attention like AIDS (my praise can't be higher for Diana for backing this) and land mines.

I think too, that people saw Diana from two different angles. On one hand, you had the glamorous, much admired and photogenic "Princess" Diana (which the majority of everyday people still call her today) and on the other hand, you have the real life Diana, Princess of Wales with warts and all. Not too many people ever got beyond seeing the fairy tale "princess" persona of Diana and that is why she's hailed as a iconic legend more so than for what she was really like as a person.

Totally agree

 

[Pranter]

I think Meghan and Harry together can capture some of that Diana magic. This will be interesting to watch.


LaRae

 

[Missjersey]

You can see already what a great team they are together...

 

[Pranter]

Yes and he has that charisma his mother had ..Meghan seems to draw them in too...I think together they will be very effective for their causes.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

I wondered, too. 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.

 

[Missy-]

I think Meghan and Harry together can capture some of that Diana magic. This will be interesting to watch.


LaRae

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.

 

[Missjersey]

Yes and he has that charisma his mother had ..Meghan seems to draw them in too...I think together they will be very effective for their causes.


LaRae

Without a doubt! They seem grounded in their causes and look out world!

 

[Missjersey]

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 hope they never get “like Diana”. Their not “in it” for charisma, popularity or adoration. They want to help people and make the world a better place. I seriously doubt Diana would have done any charity work had she not married Into the royal family ( I’m not dismissing what she did do)

 

[Missy-]

I hope they never get “like Diana”. Their not “in it” for charisma, popularity or adoration. They want to help people and make the world a better place. I seriously doubt Diana would have done any charity work had she not married Into the royal family ( I’m not dismissing what she did do)

She did charity work as a young lady, giving time to the local nursing home where she was also very well loved. If she had married a country gentleman she would have had tons of charity involvement, that's just the way of the landed aristocracy.

 

[Missjersey]

“If she had”—there is no guarantee. I won’t argue, we differ in opinion

 

[Kitty1224]

I think Meghan and Harry together can capture some of that Diana magic. This will be interesting to watch.


LaRae

I do not think so.

 

[Missy-]

I do not think so.

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