Yes, clearly it was an awful business for all concerned. One of those tragedies worthy of the great 19th century British novels, which so often depend upon rigid societal rules upon which the protagonists are impaled, but in the modern age, just pointless.
She was beautiful and glamorous and literally a princess. That’s it.
Of course there had been princesses before, but Diana became a princess at a time that celebrity media coverage was a gazillion times bigger than ever before, and she was much, much more beautiful and glamorous than anyone the royal family had ever seen since the invention of photography. It was a perfect storm of things, really, that all came together at once.
If, say, Grace Kelly had married into the British royal family instead of some obscure sort-of-a-country, she’d have been the most famous woman who ever lived save the Virgin Mary.
Princess Anne’s charitable works rival any human of our lifetimes, but she wasn’t Diana-level beautiful and glamorous so no one thinks about her.
Diana left a truly massive fortune behind. She did not leave a single penny to charity.
I think you need to consider the times to understand Jackie and Diana. (Hmm… Where’s John Mellencamp when you need him?)
Anyway, Jackie came along when the nation was tired of old leaders and old fashions and old ideas. John Kennedy showed up sans hat, was in his 40’s, and his wife was a fashionable, slim youngish woman. Previous recent presidents were Eisenhower, Truman, and FDR, and that’s all the Boomers had ever known and the oldest of them were now of voting age. America was still a buttoned down place in the 50’s and early 60s. The Kennedys were a refreshing change and they came at a time when America was changing fast and the Boomers were coming of age.
The same with Diana. She was young and fresh and attractive at a time when the Monarchy was seen as increasingly old and stuffy. The king and queen were getting up there in years (she was 71 when Diana died), and the rest of the royal family were either not very interesting or embroiled in constant scandal. And Diana came along near the start of the MTV era and mass media, before we were all so jaded by it. She also knew how to work a crowd and the media. She also put herself out in public in ways that other royals never had (and which some royals found unseemly). Hence the nickname ‘The People’s Princess’
She also dropped a lot of the charities she’d been a royal sponsor for as soon as she was divorced, much to their dismay and financial distress.
Googling, the estate was worth ~36 million dollars but after estate taxes were paid, her sons inherited most of the $21.45 million that remained. Is that a “truly massive fortune”?
Chronology correction. The Baby Boomer years are defined as 1946-1964. The first Boomers were born in 1946. (I was born in 1948 and didn’t “know” FDR or Truman. I knew Eisenhower was President, but that was about it.) Kennedy was elected in 1960. The first Boomers turned 14 in 1960, not close to voting age. (I was 12 when he was elected, and I was 15 when he was assassinated.)
You’re talking about the generation before the Boomers (our parents), commonly referred to as “The Greatest Generation,” because they came through WWII and some of them came through the Great Depression of the 1930s, at least as children. My mother was born in 1924 and my father in 1925.
Yeah, I actually had 1963 in my head for a date - probably because of the assassination, and boomers starting in '45. You are right that it was the wartime generation that really drove the desire for something new. I remember reading about what a big deal people made of Kennedy not wearing a hat outdoors. He basically changed that fashion all by himself. Soon after Kennedy came along, the hat was increasingly left at home when people went out.
And Edward VIII was David until he took the throne.
That’s what his family and friends called him, but his first name was actually Edward.
Well, I wasn’t around at the time, I’ve only ever heard of his pre-King formal name as “Edward, Prince of Wales.” Perhaps historical records on that point changed after he was king. And I have no cites, just memories.
Anyway, the point of the anecdote, for me, was that it seemed to contradict reasons cited for QEII’s father from using Albert as his regnal name, i.e. that Victoria had requested such a thing not happen.
Sad, but I guess not surprising after she dropped the royal sponsorships. Still, I thought that she would have left at least a little to charity.
Here’s a link to her will. CNN - Diana's Will: The full text - March 4, 1998
And I wouldn’t call $21.45 million a “truly massive” fortune, but it’s still a fortune, and according to the inflation adjustment calculators worth around $38 million in today’s money: $1,000,000 in 1998 → 2023 | Inflation Calculator
Yes, well, what else was he going to say? Harry and Meghan asked to step back from being active royals and go their wish, so they won’t be getting the fancy titles and all that. They’re no longer part of the family business. He’s Harry’s father, his kid is moving to California, wishing him well is sort of the thing to do, isn’t it?
I believe two princes are being confused here.
Edward viii later to be the duke of Windsor was born, Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. He known as prince edward officially, to family and friends he was known as David.
George vi was born Albert Frederick Arthur George. He was known as Prince Albert and later the duke of York (Elizabeth II was born when he was the duke). He was known as Bertie to family and friends. Of the four names he had George was the one that made the most sense to use as king.
I thought it was an interesting and very British way of very clearly saying, Harry is out of it baring a hideous event. I read it as being very clear he will not be York should Andrew predecease Charles.
Which opens up the interesting thought that charlotte could be the next york depending on how things shake out.
believe it or not, somewhere on the BBC’s site about this there was an article discussing just that and it came to the conclusion that while they’d lose a bunch A lot of the houses and such they actually own and it would pretty much end up like harry and Megan endeavors here in the states
Now here’s my question…from what everyone was saying before the queen’s passing that the UK was going to have an incredibly crappy winter to the point that the first thing she did was freeze energy rates for the rest of the year
if morale and the like is bad do you think hed be a rally them together or well not
I was talking about Albert Edward, who became Edward VII and was the grandfather of Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) and George VI.
Princes kneel before you. That’s what I say now.
Well, the QUEEN certainly didn’t do that. The monarch does nothing like that, ever.
As was I.