I think it’s mostly just a matter that Charles isn’t seen as impressive - the Queen has a sovereign gleen to her, but Charles is seen as just a somewhat odd posh person. Whereas William is yet more modern than he, but still has a general princely air (read: handsomeness).
I thought I was older than that - I couldn’t remember what year it was so I checked, and it was 11 years ago now. It still seems more recent than that to me.
I think I agree with PunditLisa on this. It possibly wasn’t just what she was like, but what she was like in comparison to the rest of the Royal family. So ironically when she was gone, we now expected some difference from how they acted, even though it was she that embodied most of that difference.
I think some celebrities seem more “real” than others.
For instance, I doubt anyone would give a rats ass to be stuck alone with Paris Hilton in an elevator for an hour. If anything, she would be an annoyance.
But Diana seemed to be the type of person you felt you would have been at least able to carry on a conversation with and had a laugh or two while waiting for someone to repair the elevator.
Plus, anybody who was hated that badly by the entire Royal Family had to have something going for her.
I remember the TV pictures of Diana comforting an AIDS victim (at a time when it was believed to be very contagious) and being instructed in land-mine clearance.
I don’t know how much charity work she did, but those two incidents alone were very helpful to those causes.
The rest of Royal family don’t give a very good impression of themselves. Given their vast wealth and power, they should try to be role models.
Certainly the Queen makes many public appearances, but I remember another TV clip, where Kirsty Howard (seriously ill kid) came forward to present something at a football match. David Beckham knelt and put his arms round the child. The Queen just stood still awkwardly.
The Queen’s husband makes bigoted remarks and Charles committed adultery (with Camilla) before during and after his marriage.
I guess a lot of people identified with Diana, or hoped she would improve the Monarchy.
I wasn’t a huge Diana fan, but I enjoyed hearing about her life. I didn’t know all the gossip about Charles and Camilla at the time of the wedding, so for me, at that time of my life as a young married woman, it did seem to be the Cinderella story come true: young kindergarten teacher gets swept off her feet by the handsome prince, who truly seemed smitten with her. Former playboy prince falls for sweet, innocent girl. The fact that she seemed more approachable and real than the rest of the Royals also helped draw me into the story of her life…we all really, really were rooting for everything to work out well for her and justify our belief that love conquers all, and our hope that fairy tales can come true.
Add to that the almost unprecedented media coverage…we never got that much info about Princess Margaret or Princess Anne! So every day we saw something new about Diana…she became part of the background of our lives. And when things started to go wrong, we took it personally. Sure, she ended up doing a lot of stupid things…but we all identified with people who made stupid choices after being emotionally battered…and we knew how much the media pressure was warping things.
So when she died so tragically, leaving behind two little boys whom she clearly adored, we all grieved for those boys, and for all the tragic and senseless deaths that go on around us everyday. We can’t know all those people…we can’t grieve for all those people,but we “knew” Diana, and could channel all that grief onto her. We could grieve for innocence lost, for dreams shattered, for the pain of having a deceitful husband, for our complicity in making her life a true sideshow. Prince Charming became a toad, and we were mad about that…so we took her side, and mourned her death.
I think one thing that was clear in the movie was that the Royal Family was reacting to Diana the person…the woman they had lived with, and seen in her private moments, when she was at her worst behavior and at her most charming. Her anctics after the divorce would have embarrassed any family. The reaction to phone call in the middle of the night was of the “oh, God, what is she up to now?” variety…and they truly seemed to be at a loss as to how to deal with it publicly…we all considered her still part of their family, while for them she had moved on, and so had they.
Thank you everyone for the thoughtful answers. I think I learned quite a bit with this thread. I guess I will never completely get it, but I don’t get the media and public love affair with our Royal Family either. (the Kennedy’s)
I think you have done a great job explaining it to me and hopefully others at least.
I clearly remember some TV footage of the flowers at the gate and an interview with a woman who said words to the effect of - I’m not a royalist, but I felt compelled to come here today. It seemed that many were themselves confused about their feelings - it was a complete shock. I also remember one of her first interviews with the press where she and Charles were wearing matching jumpers and doing a photo session - she leaned forward and started answering questions from the press - very unroyal.
One of the things that impressed me was when she fired her publicist and gave an interview stating that her marriage was rather crowded.
I seem to remember her being told to shut up about the landmines thing - pretty controversial stuff for a royal too. In some ways she stuck it to the royals where she could have stiff upper lipped it for the rest of her life. Also she was attractive and coy - before that we had Anne horsewhipping her husband …
I never gave a shit about her - I’m an American and not interested in other countries’ monarchies - but watching the outpouring of grief on TV after she died actually made me tear up a bit. Seeing so many people so sad made me sad in turn, I guess.
I can easily see getting really wound up if everyone around you is getting wound up. Sort of a snowball effect.
I also agree with Zebra. I was never a hysterical Diana-fan, but even I shed a tear when she died. She was young, she had young children, and it was just senseless.
I had a huge thing for her when I was young, at least until I saw Jane Seymour as Solitaire in Live and Let Die, at which point thoughts of all other women were shelved for a few years.
She had the whole fairytale thing going, and while it’s not as though she was born into poverty, marrying (arguably) the most eligible man in the world will get you a good few column inches.
Plus, she had the whole lots-of-charity-work thing. I bet there are tons of people who hate U2 but like Bono.
She was the daughter (and later sister) of a nobleman. I think that technically made her a commoner before her marriage. And I don’t think “Princess of Wales” counts as a peerage, so she might have continued to be a commoner.
I’m also an American so I may mangle this explanation, but I believe the “Lady” was just a courtesy title. Diana was technically a commoner since she didn’t have and wouldn’t inherit a noble title of her own*, but since she was a titled nobleman’s daughter she wasn’t really your COMMON commoner.
*Had Diana been an only child she’d eventually have become Countess of Spencer, but as things were it went to her younger brother, the only male heir. As Diana had older sisters she’d have been last in line for the title.
as I said in post 31 - he’s a cradle robbing git who cheated on his wife. She was a naive child bride and was treated like royal silverware to be pulled out when needed for public display. What he did was wrong and because of his actions her life was a hellish humiliation photographed at crotch level on a daily basis for all to see, right down to the moment of her death.
I would love to see his romantic heart ripped out and placed on the front page of every newspaper for the express purpose of lining the cat litter boxes of the world.
Other than that, I think he’s just a prince of a guy.
And now ladyladylady is a nonsense word in my head.
I liked Diana. I felt sorry for her. She was one year older than I am. I suppose she was my generation’s Jackie O or Grace Kelly. Fashionable (after a short awkward duckling phase), glamorous, involved in the world in ways I could never be etc. I thought she acted well until after her marriage ended and she got a bit weird. Heck, they’re all a bit odd–Charles wanting to be Camilla’s tampon and Diana messing around with the horsemaster or captain of the guard or some such. I didn’t like divorced Diana nearly as much-I started to think that she was using the press to feed her own neuroses (for some psychobabble), but who among us would have stood what she put up with daily for so long? I know I’d’ve ended up in a loony bin. For her to die in such a stupid way was a tragedy. IMO, she forced the Royals out of the prolonged Victorian age–they had solidified after WW2 into frumpy, old, querulous people.
She was like a breath of fresh air. Then came Fergie–who truly WAS common(in both senses of the word). I remember watching Fergie lurch up the aisle to the alter and I realized that no one had ever taught her how to walk like a lady. Diana helped Fergie, but in the end, they both were unhappy and divorced. I often wonder if Fergie’s girls see Diana’s boys often–is it like family gatherings or is it more like a board of trustee’s meeting?
I don’t mind Charles–it’s Camilla that makes me heave. Nasty bit of work.
But she wasn’t a commoner–she was a member of the nobility. Fergie was a commoner–she has no “noble” bloodlines at all.
Lady is a courtesy title in Diana’s case, but that does mean she couldn’t claim the honorific. Custom and tradition made her; her birth made her part of the nobility. Diana’s brother is now an Earl–none of her family are commoners.
That’s my point. She wasn’t a member of the nobility. Her father was, and, after he died, her brother was. She was never a peer in her own right. Thus, she was a commoner.
It’s my understanding that that’s not what “commoner” means. A commoner is everyone who isn’t the monarch or a peer of the realm.
This sentence make no sense. It is a “courtesy” precisely because she holds no title in her own right.
She certainly could call herself “lady” and wouldn’t even have needed to insist on the point, but since she wasn’t a peer herself (a lady “by right”) then she was, strictly speaking, a commoner. The “lady” courtesy title just means that she wasn’t a common commoner.
