What was Diana really like?
Updated: August 30, 11.45 BST.
In the comments section of this website we can always rely on hard-fought debates whenever Diana, Princess of Wales crops up in the news.
Now, with the approach of the 10th anniversary of her death and the Memorial Service on Friday, together with the Inquest in October, the arguments are flying thick and fast.
What is the truth about Diana? Was she the secular saint portrayed by her supporters, or the “devious moron” proclaimed last week by the feminist writer and academic, Germaine Greer?
Whenever a person polarizes opinion in the way Diana did and still does, we must suspect a multi-faceted personality at work. How else is it possible that one observer can be repelled, like Greer, while another becomes a devotee for life?
Diana was undoubtedly a very sweet person. Testimony is overwhelmingly supportive of the view. You can’t ignore the disbelieving shock around the world that greeted her untimely death in a little-known Paris tunnel late one August night. The reaction vouches for the conclusions of millions who think her the most adorable person of the 20th century.
The response totally baffled people who don’t have the need for a mother figure in their lives. Greer’s response is typical of clever, self-sufficient individuals who are appalled by the outpouring of what they see as second-hand emotions using a deeply troubled woman as focus.
But there was a darker side to Diana’s nature that can’t be denied. She could be utterly unforgiving and vindictive to anyone she thought had crossed her. The treatment of loyal aide Victoria Mendham, who has never cashed in on their friendship, remains unexplainable in terms of her outer persona. [Prince William has now invited Victoria to the Memorial Service.] There are many other well-documented cases of this “mark of Cain” damnation towards her perceived enemies.
Her father, Earl Spencer, is said to have remarked before the wedding, “Wait till Charles finds out how difficult she is when she doesn’t get her way.”
Hell hath no fury like a woman who imagines she’s scorned. Diana seems to have had a strong sense of inferiority about her intellectual abilities, which quickly concluded she was being patronized or dismissed, even when she was not.
When I read the eulogies of her passionately devoted fans, I’m reminded of R.L. Stevenson’s book, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It’s as if her supporters have read the book while blanking out Mr Hyde completely. You can never underestimate the need for heroes and the lengths people will go to convince themselves they have found the real thing.
On the other hand, taunts of madness levelled at the Princess are overdone. In many senses she was saner than many of us. That eerily accusative mental illness, Borderline Personality Disorder, always seems to me like something that can be found in anyone if you look hard enough.
When the going got tough, as it inevitably did for such a trailblazer, she usually fell back on a near childlike personality, which projected a blank canvas for others to paint their own pictures of how they wished her to be. Like many women, she discovered the “broken wing” strategy worked a charm with men, who fell over themselves to protect her. It also drew out the maternal instinct in women, who remain her most devoted supporters. In her later years she was seen as both madonna and child simultaneously. There was more than a touch of magnetic Harry Potter “magic” about Diana.
You might conclude that it was a brilliant strategy for operating in the dark corridors of power, but I doubt it was a conscious plan at all. Her school report said, “she lacks all intellectual curiosity”, so it was probably more of an instinctive survival mechanism in a world that had already proved untrustworthy by the time she was six years old.
Whatever it was, it certainly had a stunning effect on the people around her, once she had reached high status in the Royal Family. I can’t help wondering how she might have developed had she mastered the Mr Hyde aspect of her psyche.
The fact that she could handle the world’s projections put upon her at all is the most remarkable part of her character and story. That alone, in my view, makes her an historical figure of some note.
But perhaps no human is allowed that kind of influence in this “vale of tears”.
As I mentioned earlier. both Diana and Charles came from dysfunctional families and it’s no wonder Diana was an extremely insecure person. Charles didn’t help any by being insensitive and cold to her and I believe she was doomed from the moment she became engaged to him. Perhaps if she had married a ordinary bloke who lived in the “real world” and could deal with her insecurities, she might have been much better off.
Now, it’s no secret that I don’t like Camilla but I do feel a sneaking sympathy for her – one wonders if she realises she’s got herself into a bigger hole than she can ever get out of as i cannot imagine Charles accepting a second divorce.
By NCKat on August 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Be careful what you wish for, or you will surely get it.” Wise words, but Camilla has a history of disregarding sage advice until it is too late.
By Gigi on August 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I think they’ll rub along to the end, Kat. Nowhere else to go now. The constitutional problems of the succession are going to be a nightmare, though.
By John on August 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Be careful what you wish for are the wisest words of all, Gigi. We could all heed them every day.
By John on August 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Yes, I think Charles and Camilla are in a corner together now. What else is either of them going to do? I really wonder how the succession will be handled. I assume it’s now okay for the future king to have married a divorced woman.
BPD has become a catch phrase to describe anyone who does anything remotely “nuts” in this decade, and I don’t know how helpful it is to “explain” Diana with this new psycological label. In the 80s we all blamed our parents. Now we all have BPD. Next decade someone will claim she was abducted by aliens. It isn’t really helpful to examine someone’s less than flattering characteristics through the lens of an of-the-moment diagnosis.
As for Diana, I do think the Tina Brown book does a credible job of presenting the Princess as a three-dimensional human being. For those who complain that Brown didn’t know Diana, well, neither did Starkey know Elizabeth I. The job of a biographer isn’t to be “friends” with her subject and to recount nice things her subject did during the course of her life, but to sort through accounts and do original research and come up with a portrait that is fair and balanced and hopefully interesting.
Eventually someone was going to have to write such a biography of Diana and I was pretty surprised that Brown did such a good job, not because I think TB is a dummy–she isn’t–but because I didn’t know if she had it in her to handle so many different psycological types. The Diana who emerges from her book feels very real to me and I actually have a newfound respect for Brown as a result.
As for how interesting Diana really was . . . if it hadn’t been for her marriage into the Royal Family it’s hard to see just how interesting she would have actually become. But she really did take a difficult situation, find her own particular skills (empathy) and turn her life into something generally positive, which is admirable. Not everyone looks at their life and decides, as she did, to try to be a force for good. She didn’t have to become a crusader for compassion. She couldn’t gone on lunching and wearing great clothes. But she put herself in some very tricky positions out of what I really believe was a desire to use her life in some positive manner.
I’m still sorry she died, just as she was on the brink of her own independence and of challenging herself to do something even more productive. No, she was no intellect. She wrote no books or insightful dissertations that demonstrated a capacity for examining things critically. But if she’d taken on a leadership role as devised for her by Blair, perhaps she would’ve developed a bit more. I’m sorry her love life was never really sorted out.
There isn’t really anyone on the public stage now–except maybe Brangelina–who combines this kind of do-gooder with celebrity-star-power. In that Diana really was truly original for the public. And of course, it’s awful to think that two young men have had to live without their mother due to an automobile accident.
By Marie on August 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Excellent summary, Marie. I agree completely with your assessment.
By John on August 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
John, I agree with you that there were many facets to Diana’s personality that the adoring public, myself included, didn’t see. But I will never get over the fact that Diana was a nineteen year old girl who was deceived, from the start, by people supposedly older and wiser than she. And these older and wiser people are still doing their best to tarnish Diana’s image. Diana is dead! She cannot upstage the Queen, or Charles, or Camilla except in peoples minds. The Memorial Service on Friday is supposed to celebrate Diana’s life and good works. Yet it has turned into a rehashing of the whole Diana, Charles and Camilla saga and an re-examination of who did what to whom. It’s not Diana’s fans who are igniting this flame. It’s her detractors and dare I say some Clarence House lackys, who are draging Diana through the mud all over again. They are just so put out by the public adulation of this women, that their claws come out whenever Diana’s name is mentioned.
By Arthur on August 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Thank you for posting that, Arthur. I agree with you!
By Gigi on August 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I also wanted to add that people–especially women–identify with Diana because her story has come to represent what they themselves feel they have experienced. She married with a heart and head full of naively romantic thoughts, discovered that she lived in a vastly more complicated world than the one described in Cartland novels, escaped and re-fashioned her life.
What the royal family missed with Diana is the degree to which her story has been lived out over and over again by so many people in the modern world. Divorce rates soared in the 80s and 90s, right? And, as is the case in the US, women suffer more financially than men in the case of a divorce. When people view Diana purely as a victim, that’s a reflection of their own view of themselves and their life’s experiences.
I wasn’t someone who followed her every move when she was alive, but boy did it upset me when Diana died. I remember staying up to watch that funeral. Like many people, I’ve really been moved by her life’s story–particularly as I get older and contrast my current self with my younger self. It’s easy to see why so many women projected their own life’s stories onto Diana.
How “evil” the royal family is comes down, I think, to one’s ability to perceive the complexity of the situation and understand that the Firm existed and still exists in a very antiquated mindset. Diana wasn’t an intellectual. What she understood was that she was terribly hurt and felt that she had been misled. I don’t know how much she understood beyond that.
I think over time she, along with the British people, could have realized that the Royal Family wasn’t willfully trying to hurt her. They had their own problems–Charles’ inability to marry and form an emotional attachment to anyone aside from CPB, and a changing social environment (girls going to uni, having premarital sex, getting jobs, the intrusion of the media, happiness as an actual life and marriage goal instead of just keeping a stiff upper lip and merging titles and fortunes)–that must have been absolutely bewildering. They weren’t able to see the forest for the trees.
I’m not saying that the situation with Diana is understandable and forgivable. But it was a kind of perfect storm in the making. The family had to find a wife for Charles. She was game. Charles popped the question. More intelligent and worldly women–like that Knatchbull chick–said no. If it hadn’t happened to Diana, it would’ve happened to somebody, because for so many generations, everyone stayed the course and tacitly agreed to a social system that, unbeknownst to the royal family, was disappearing.
By Marie on August 27th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Thanks, Gigi, that’s so much closer to reality than the romantic view normally adopted by many people.
By John on August 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
John, Tony Blair did not exploit Princess Diana to any greater extent than the Royal Family or the media did. I understand what happened very well even if I do live in the United States. I realize that there are few angels in the world, but it is a mistake to demonize so many also. Tony Blair was faced with the sudden and tragic death of a woman who already was adored by her international public. Before he had time to react to what, in normal circumstances, might have been a private family matter, the horrendously inappropriate response (or non-response) by the Queen and the senior members of the Royal Family made Princess Diana’s demise into a PR disaster that threatened the existence of the Monarchy. No matter what your politics, Tony Blair was able to rise to the occasion and put Princess Diana’s death into terms that were comforting to her grieving public until the Royal Family emerged from their denial and fashioned an appropriate response. For that, if for nothing else, he deserves praise and respect. One of the faults in people today that simply destroys their credibility is this absurd need many seem to have to bash everyone to the ground unless they agree totally with another’s espoused political agenda. Such behavior is ignoble and says far more about the basher than the bashee–none of it complimentary. Tony Blair did some good things, and among those is his statemanlike response to the death of Princess Diana. Britain was closer to crisis that week of Princess Diana’s death than she has been since the Blitz. When someone throws you a lifeline, it is beyond the pale to question his motives in doing so. There is more to Tony Blair than his politics, just as there was far more to Princess Diana than the tragic marriage she made to Charles.
By Gigi on August 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well said Gigi!
John, Just an FYI . . .Tony Blair did not create “The People’s Princess” title– that credit belongs to author Anthony Holden. “The People’s Princess” was actually the title of the chapter about Diana in Holden’s 1993 book about the House of Windsor, The Tarnished Crown.
By Faith on August 28th, 2007 at 12:32 am
The debate on Diana and the woman she was has people split by those who loved her and those who were insanely jealous of her. Diana was brought up by a single father though she adored him who really did not give much thought to educating his daughter. His way of paying attention was by giving them toy catalogues at christmas and telling his children to circle what they wanted. Perhaps Diana in her insecurity as a child did not excell to her full potential academically because she was not challenged and was bored. As a woman and Princess she showed just how intelligent she was whether working for charity or negotiating her divorce. Diana was challenged and rose to the occasion making informed comments and asking pertinent questions to the cause she was involved in.
It was so easy for her foes to dismiss her as mental the RF and those who work within because her father was quite right in his Quote wait till Charles finds out how difficult she is when she doesn’t get her way. Well her way was for a marriage that meant fidelity and she fought with every ounce of her being for her marriage. I suppose postnatal depression is now being diagnosed as BPD. Diana was not saint nor was she a devil.
Diana was simply a woman who was human.
By Trudie on August 28th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Well said, Trudie. By the way, there was just a program on Princess Diana broadcast on Biography this evening. It is a fairly balanced treatment and it brought all the pathos back to me. The entire tragedy could have been avoided if more care had been taken of this fragile, compassionate girl at some point in her life, by someone. It isvery painful to contemplate how many people failed her, how many cracks she fell through for the want of a hand to clasp.
By Gigi on August 28th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Thanks, Faith.
There are a lot of theories about the PP title. Alastair Campbell is thought to have fed it to Blair when coaching him over the phone for that speech after her death.
Anthony Holden himself has a lot of axes to grind and is no friend of Clarence House.
By John on August 28th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Thanks, everyone!
As I thought it’s just not possible to inject objectivity into the Diana story. Emotions are still too raw even after 10 years.
Maybe I’ll have another go in 2017.
By John on August 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I agree with you, John. Having read Holden’s three previous biographies of Prince Charles (at age 30, 40, and 50), it was pretty evident with each successive book that Holden’s opinion of his subject had changed considerably(and not for the better). Does anyone know if Mr. Holden is planning to commemorate HRH’s “Big 6-0″ next year with a new book?
By Faith on August 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
If I were him, Faith, I’d leave well alone. He’s mined that theme to death, I think.
By John on August 28th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Faith, I agree with you that Anthony Holden’s opinion of Charles’ sinks lower with every book he researches and writes about him. I own all of those books and it is very evident that after Holden scraped away the fascade created by Charles’ spin doctors, what Holden saw was very distasteful to the writer. I for one would welcome Holden writing another book about Charles at 60. Holden will tell the truth about Charles, even if no one else will.
By Gigi on August 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Actually, Charles at 60 is much more interesting than Charles at 50. A real writer wouldn’t want to pass that up!
By Marie on August 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
If interesting=revolting, I agree with you, Marie.
By Gigi on August 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
So many good comments on this thread. As to what Diana was really like, I don’t think that is the pertinent question. I prefer …
Why did people respond to Diana the way they did?
She was icon even before she became a humanitarian and before her private sorrows were disclosed. I remember the Lady Di mania.
By Alicia on August 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
OK John why don’t you let your own objectivity come through and you can spare us in 2017 emotions will still be the same by the people who remember.
By Trudie on August 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
No, I just mean he’s more humanized. I think revolting takes it too far.
The real story for me is the succession question. If the UK had been willing to accept Camilla at the memorial, that would mean they would accept her as their queen.
The fact that she is not welcome at the memorial–and honestly, I don’t see how she could have been–means to me that there will be serious questions about her becoming queen.
And that makes the inevitable succession really, really tricky.
I think Charles knows this. I think he really wanted and hoped to appear “normal” and “accepted.” By forcing the issue so hard, though, he sort of forced everyone’s hand. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Oh, and anyone notice the complete dearth of Kate Middleton news?
By Marie on August 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I do, also, Alicia. I think it was at the Concert for Diana that there was a montage of photographs of the beautiful Princess Diana flashed on huge screens with Elvis Costello singing “She” from the movie “Notting Hill.” I broke down and wept straight through it. I am not impressed by people who are merely beautiful or famous. For example, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis did not impress me nor did I find her exceptional. None of the Hollywood stars, even the authentic ones from the 40s and 50s are especially admirable in my view. Princess Diana was so very different. She was a rare beauty, with true substance, heartfelt compassion and a star quality that had more to do with what she was about than who she was or what she looked like. Ten years on, her star quality is still as strong, her memory still fresh in the hearts of millions. Now she lives in our dreams but while we can remember that time when she graced our lives, she will never truly die.
By Gigi on August 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Every time I read about Charles, I want to punch him. That to me means that I find him revolting!
I am employing all the self-control I can muster, but there it is. I doubt that Nanny Anderson is still alive, but if she is, we need to contact her to come take Charles in hand, if such a thing is, indeed possible.
By Gigi on August 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Why did people respond to Diana the way they did?
Alicia, they responded out of their own needs by projecting their problems onto her — her problems were then transformed into their’s. Most of her devotees were/are needy, disappointed people.
I’ve modified the post now to take account of that projection effect which became weirdly quasi-religious and delusional towards the end.
All this totally baffled people who don’t have this need for a mother figure in their lives. Greer’s response is absolutely typical of clever, self-sufficient individuals who are appalled by the outpouring of what they see as second-hand emotions using a deeply troubled woman as focus.
The fact that she could handle all that is the most remarkable part of her character and story. That alone, in my view, makes her a major historical figure.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am
It’s interesting that Victoria Mendham, mentioned in the post as left off the guest list, was yesterday invited by Prince William.
Excellent move, your Royal Highness. Keep on reading Royal Anecdotes.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am
[...] Friday, Syntagma readers may be interested in an objective look at her character and story in our Royal Anecdotes site. Even ten years after, the shock of that August night still reverberates around the world and has [...]
By SYNTAGMA » Diana : What was she really like? on August 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Greer’s response is absolutely typical of clever, self-sufficient individuals who are appalled by the outpouring of what they see as second-hand emotions using a deeply troubled woman as focus.”
I have to say, I think that’s a little generous. Greer may be clever and self-sufficient, but her attitude is pretty damning and judgmental not only of Diana but of the people who identified with her, and fails at all to take into account why she was so popular in the first place. In school-yard speak, it’s limited and mean.
Yes, I personally agree that Dianamanina is bizarre–as I find any kind of celebrity worship to be. But it’s also an undeniable facet of modern life; actually, the desire to project onto others is historically part of human life, if you look at the way people have worshipped saints and other historical figures. Greer misses that parallel completely.
I also think the dismissal of near religious fervour as somehow just plain stupid is particularly British. Recent wars, triggered by religious certitude, are often used as evidence of the evils of religion, negating the positive values that any kind of fervent belief can also support. It’s no surprise, for example, that Richard Dawkins, who is English, has written “The God Delusion.” He’s exactly that kind of cultural mind which has no room for anything too irrational and thus smacking of superstition. Greer’s comments come from that same kind of attitude. And while New Yorkers such as myself often intellectually identify with rational thinkers, I think in general we aren’t quite as damning, which is why Diana is still so popular here.
Many people seem to have the need for this kind of “fixation.” A recent article in the Sunday New York Times, for example, studied the way in which educated western minds view religion–and argued rather persuasively that we are the exception in the world and not the rule. To get along with other people, the author argued, we will have to take their religious certitude into account, and not just stand here impatiently waiting for them to “get over it.” I’m sure this is the kind of article which would enrage Mr. Dawkins, or a “clever, self-sufficent” Ms. Greer.
So how any kind of religious fixation, including Diana, is viewed, I think, is often evidence of a huge cultural gap. On the one hand are cynics who fashion themselves as realists and who are “above” any kind of worshipful behavior. On the other hand are people who are swallowed up whole by it, love Diana, retrace her steps, lash out angrily at others on her behalf, etc. and act like a bunch of Maenads.
I think there should be room in the middle for people who can see both sides, can see the cultural value of a figure like Diana without becoming so caught up in her myth that they feel like the “know” her and have the right to “defend” her. She moved and still moves people and there is a reason for it. And I think to simply dismiss her as being emblamatic of weak and irrational minds, is missing the point and, in the long run, a reflection of a dangerous attitude to take in this religiously charged times.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Marie, you put it very well. I’ve criticized Dawkins myself on the grounds that he has turned Darwinism into a religion that’s little different from fundamentalism of any kind. Scientism is just as brutal as any narrow sect.
As for Diana, she’s a fascinating example of a projection magnet. Everyone experiences this in a small way when someone “falls in love” with you. You can see the projections in their face. Can you live up to them, though? Prince Charles couldn’t, but Diana just absorbed the lot in a way that’s just astonishing.
Had she become Queen, she might have astonished us even more.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
As an American who is new to this site, but a long-time”royalty watcher”, I have a question, please, relating to Marie’s post about Camilla becoming Queen, and that succession will be tricky. . .
Regardless of public opinion, constitutionally, is there anything that will prevent Camilla from becoming Queen? Since Diana, Princess of Wales has passed away, didn’t Camilla, upon her marriage to HRH inherit ALL of the titles that Diana used to hold?
Isn’t Clarence House just dancing around it by saying she will be known as Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Consort, when in fact, she currently IS the Princess of Wales and WILL become Queen?
By Faith on August 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Faith, Camilla is The Princess of Wales, but prefers to be known as Duchess of Cornwall. If Charles succeeds as King, Camilla will be Queen in law.
For her not to be crowned with Charles in Westminster Abbey, an Act of Parliament would be necessary, plus Acts in 17 other Parliaments around the world where the Queen is Monarch and Head of State.
Personally, I can’t see all that happening. Those who still hold a grudge against her will make a fuss, but they can’t overturn the law. If William is married to Kate by then, there will be an overwhelming wish for the Throne to bypass a generation.
But it’s likely to be a nightmare, and really should be sorted out now.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
John, you can psychoanalyze this all you pleased, but I have no wish for a Mother figure, have no traumas to project on another person, and am in no way needy or disappointed. Yet Princess Diana has a strong appeal for me and I admire her tremendously. Generalizations often do not work and wholesale labeling is both sophomoric, inaccurate and a waste of time.
By Gigi on August 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Oh, God. Please don’t give me away John! Then I promise I won’t go away.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Marie, of course not. And please don’t go away.
Gigi, they were not generalizations. They were directed precisely at the Diana case, but may not fit every individual involved.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“As for Diana, she’s a fascinating example of a projection magnet. Everyone experiences this in a small way when someone “falls in love†with you.”
Now, see, you and Prince Charles could have a very nice conversation about Jungian psycology. One wonders if he’s analyzed the Princess Di phenom along these very lines.
Gigi–that’s kind of my point. Greer’s assessment of Diana puts people into two camps: loonies and the sensibly repressed. I think there’s another way to look at her. As Clinton said, we Americans liked her and admired her. In other words, I think we “got” her. Her effusions seemed normal to us–okay, maybe a little crazy-nutso. But very, very human. And as I tried (with typos) to say above, she could have gone on having lunches and wearing great clothes and letting that be the end of her life. But she didn’t. She took a tough stance on a controversial subject and doubtless would have taken on more.
It really is terrible that she died.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Gigi, I’ve been asked to do four TV and media interviews for the Memorial Service on Friday, including Fox News in the States. So my post must be striking a chord somewhere.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Well done, John! Which outlets other than Fox News?
By Gigi on August 29th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I’m away until the weekend, Gigi, so have had to turn them all down. However, I can still post here by remote access.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
It is a generalization John, because you used the word “they” to answer a question “Why did people respond to Diana the way they did.” Had you said “Some people….” or used another qualifier, that would have been specific. But to issue a blanket statement using “they” is a sweeping generalization.
By Gigi on August 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Most of her devotees were/are needy, disappointed people.
The implication is “most” throughout, Gigi, so is not a generalization.
By John on August 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
How could you possibly know whether most or even any of her devotees were/are needy, disappointed people, John? Your statement, with no support, is what makes it a generalization.
By Gigi on August 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Many are totally crumpled individuals.”
Well let’s get them a makeover! I mean, I’m sure that everyone here on RA is well groomed and is in fact anything but crumpled, even in the swetlering summer heat.
Seriously, what’s wrong with being needy and disappointed? The world is disappointing. Maybe all these people who stiff-upper-lip their way through disappointment are the disillusioned ones.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
My goodness, John, what a remark to make. For one thing, of those who love and revere Princess Diana, only a small percentage of them are British. Most of them do not appear on British TV. Furthermore, it concerns me that you apparently feel that only well-grromed, well-dressed, attractive people and their opinions should be considered. That excludes Christ and His Disciples and Apostles, all of whom were neither well-fed, well-dressed nor, with one or two exceptions, well-connected. Clothes do not make the man, John, nor have they ever. I would hope that the essence of a person–his thoughts, feelings, emotions–are more important to you than his outward appearance. Let us recollect and regroup. It is most assuredly time for tea. Along with the tea, sanwiches and cakes, I am serving compassion for our fellow men and women. It appears as if we could all do with some.
By Gigi on August 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
John, somewhere in all of this is a reality TV show. I say you go and pitch it.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Gigi, since compassion was one of Princess Diana’s great assets, I suspect she will join us (in the spiritual sense) for tea.
By Evelyn on August 29th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
John, you seem to have struck a nerve!
Gigi . . . Your statement implies that Christ and His Disciples were poorly groomed, poorly dressed, and unattractive, and you state that they “all. . .were neither well-fed, well-dressed nor, with one or two exceptions, well-connected”. I don’t remember learning that in Sunday School, or was that just a generalization :+)?
Hmm . . . Son of God, Disciple of the Son of God. (How much more “well connected” can you get :+)?
Come on folks . . . lighten up!
P.S. John, thanks for answering my question regarding succession.
By Faith on August 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Projecting one’s feelings on a person is one thing, identifying with them is another.
Many people admire and identify with her rebellion against authority – Prince Charles and the Royal Family. She didn’t cower and take their abuse. Instead, she confronted them and fought back, in public, and raised questions about their legitimacy. (Talk about going for the jugular.)
No neediness here … neither on her part nor on those who admire her. As a very successful friend of mine told me “She wouldn’t put up with him, she wouldn’t bow down to them, good for her.”
I think getting all Jungian is over-complicating matters.
By Alicia on August 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Not all her admirers are needy/frustrated individuals. Many were saying “Right on. Good for her!”
By Alicia on August 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Hmm… I think she needed to be needed, and the british public needed someone like that… she was a sort of extended family member. In the East, she was thought of as “the understanding one” from the West. Maybe certain people in africa thought of her as someone who understood something of their hardship. Her fans in Britain are proud of her as… simply the biggest star in the world, apart from everything else. A decade on, no-one has touched that sort of celebrity. And we miss her sense of humour.
By kit on August 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“I think getting all Jungian is over-complicating matters.”
So would Diana, I’m sure.
By Marie on August 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Here’s a lurker from the American South, coming out of the woodwork! I’ve been reading this site for months and always look forward to reading comments on the various articles.
John, I just finished reading The Diana Chronicles – I resisted for months, but finally gave in. I am a Diana supporter – but I still regard what I read about her, good and bad, with skepticism.
I just want to say that I think the reason that so many of Diana’s supporters may appear “crumpled,” if that is indeed how they appear, is because of the fact that they may have shared some of Diana’s troubles with her. Diana came clean about her eating disorders, her disaster of a marriage, and about growing up in an unhappy home. When you share your problems and you are a public figure, people empathize with you. When you admit that something happened to you, you remind other people in similar situations that they are not alone. It’s sometimes hard to remember that yours is not the first divorce, etc.
And I want to add this – the day she died, I was affected not only by the fact that her sons lost their mother, but that Diana died before she could really live a little, as just herself and not the Princess of Wales. Happiness takes a long time to find and it usually takes a struggle – it would have been good to see her ten or fifteen years down the road to see where her life had taken her.
By SadieBoo on August 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am
SadieBoo, I think the Tina Brown book is the closest anyone has got to explaining the phenomenon that was Diana. She’s fair to both sides, giving Charles his due for trying hard to make it work, while being baffled by her. And Diana is presented as a rounded person rather than as a saint on the one hand, or a nutter on the other.
Anyone who wants the whole picture (or the nearest we’ve got) should read the book.
Oh, and I’ve not got shares in Random House.
By John on August 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
“Was she the secular saint portrayed by her supporters, or the “devious moron ?”
A little bit of the 2
Definitevely not a saint. And yes she was childish, manipulative (the Taj Mahal, Harlem, the medias, …), vain (despite her inferiority feeling), cracked (Oliver Hoare’s harassment), had stupid tendencies for revenge and victimization and was a spoiled child. I never saw someone who could divide the nation so much like she did. And despite that she was the jewel on the crown. You could not find a better English ambassador. Despite her position she was not afraid to be involved in delicate subjects (landmines, Aids…) and it’s admirable. She showed she was available and thats what people liked. She has understood what was the key, you mix superficiality with seriousness and it’s always wins. Despite that sometimes her charities were a way to self congratulation, she genuinely had a good heart. I think that 50% of people who were in the street after her death were there because there was an “event”. I think most of them cried a part of themselves, because she used the public to show how she was depressed, it’s like if they cried someone of their families. Today, if you ask to the same people what they feel about her, I believe most of them would say they don’t care now. It’s the past now, and to be honest I think the British people’s reaction was a little bit silly and over excited.
I think she was someone who was bored during all her life. And her whole life, from birth to death, was terrible. No matter she was rich. No one can recover from the childhood hurts. A royal marriage was anything but what she needed. Because of her lacks of attention and of love when she was a child, I can’t imagine the pain she had when she realized she was desired for her ovaries. This woman was the entire victim of muckrakings and cheap fusses. She was and is still exploited without measure. But her involvement in Morton’s book is unforgivable. She pushed the selfdestruction button of the institution for which her son was promised. If she didnt make Panorama, there wouldnt have immediately a divorce. Here again, the tendency for revenge. And strangely, she has done more, or her image has done more for the monarchy than anybody else from the RF. I think that most of us who play at commenting about them do it because of her impact. She was a sweet mess. It would be great if the medias let her alone because she begins to look like a cheap icon and it would be too bad. This woman deserves compassion, not fountains, exhibitions, books or movies.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
She was a sweet mess.
A very neat summary, Lily. That should go in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, or Bon Mots as you might say.
By John on August 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Whatever happened to that military guy who was like William’s mentor in his teens? I can’t even remember his name, and you never, ever see him in the news anymore.
By Marie on August 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Do you mean ex-Welsh Guards officer Mark Dyer, Marie? The last I heard of him was in 2006 when he rushed Harry into hospital after he cut himself with a knife.
He seems to have been replaced by the boys’ private secretary, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, an ex-SAS officer. But I may be wrong.
By John on August 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I rather think Germaine Greer’s comments say more about her than about Diana. Good one Germaine! Didn’t even know you were still alive until you figured out how to get publicity for yourself and new book beyond academic circles. You just outdid Diana since most people don’t even know who you are. Everyone knew Diana so grabbing attention was easy for her. And we care about your deliberately headline seeking analysis of her why? You did some great work back when we almost ancient crones were discovering feminism. Lately, not so much. Please, rest on your laurels and spare us the cheap publicity tricks. It’s getting old–just like the two of us.
By judy on August 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
[...] Royal Anecdotes has a comprehensive exploration of her character and story. Read it here. [...]
By Celebrity at Work - Influencers of the Zeitgeist » Princess Diana — the ultimate celebrity on September 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pm