Diana Spencer

[Robert]

I think it was Arthur Bryant who pointed out that, despite all the talk about the masses wanting the upper classes to be more like them, the reality is that the masses desire to be more like the upper classes. After all, council houses are built on estates ; criminals talk about their manors ; and an Englishman's home is his castle.

[Rubyretro]

I have never been interested in Diana before -I moved to France in 1985 and missed all the TV coverage (Panorama interview etc) and the fuss over Andrew Morton's book. I was aware of things happening, but I didn't bother to find out about them, or read any articles in the British papers.

By chance, I was travelling from the UK to Paris early on the morning that news of Diana's death broke -so that was very memorable for me (the Alma tunnel blocked off for one).

Looking at this thread piqued my curiosity enough to go and watch the Panorama interview on Youtube -and I confess that I found it utterly fascinating !

She was alot like her brother, Earl Spencer (whom I'm more familiar with) , infact.

The theatrical makeup and soft voice, and the obviously chosen and rehearsed passages were quite chilling. Suppressed anger and revenge, is what I see.

There was a very narrow tightrope between her aknowledged 'strength' but
empathy with 'victims'. I'm sure that one part of her was sincere -but she was also a habile user of emotional blackmail.. Victimhood was her career choice.

She only really became naturally animated when talking about 'her boys' (one of whom is a future King -and she was suggesting that Charles should be passed over )and the Press (particularly their growing 'indifference'). It was quite 'medieval' to watch.

At the end of the day -I think that I'd rather have been 'mates' with Camilla.
So I do have sympathy for Charles.

[Phil H]

No, I think Blair acted quite rightly and rode the storm (for that's what it was) very well, Robert.

I recall clearly the feeling that some groundswell was rising that week that could well have carried away the monarchy had it not been diverted and satisfied. Indeed, I wrote to the Queen's Private Secretary to urge the palace to put a flag on the pole if that was what it took to calm the mob. (It was all being stoked by The Sun and Murdoch outlets such as Sky, of course).

I think that Blair - Mrs Blair's attitudes are, I think, irrelevant - and Campbell called it exactly right. had he not captured the popular mood - the phrase, "The People's Princess" and the tone of the speech that included those words, was a masterstroke; and I think he gave timely and important advice to the Palace on modifying protocol re the reception of the body and the funeral. Without that, and Blair's confidence in having won a landslide majority only recently, I think we might have been on the cusp of revolution. (Don't forget this was the "Cool Britannia" period, and if Blair had said "monarchy outdated" at that point, it could well have been swept away. That's my reading anyhow.)

On the other hand, the Queen's broadcast was the crowning moment - a masterly performance, demonstrating HM's pragmatism - although one understands that Campbell may have tweaked the wording to effect.

The fact remains that the Royal Family did nothing particularly "wrong" and in it's light acted as it always had. The problem was they they were now shown to be considerably out of step with the nation and public attitudes and behaviour. To the family's credit is that it learned lessons quickly. (I lay much of the blame for that week on the household who gave poor advice and were, I think, out of touch. Maybe, like the rest of us the Princess' death and subsequent events came as a shock from which they did not recover fast enough.)

On the positive side, the Queen's broadcast and indeed the reaction to her return to London (which at once quieted all criticism) indicated that the majority of the public still perceive the monarchy as at the centre of society and a focus for national emotion (grief, triumph, celebration whatever). The Golden Jubilee bore that out.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

[B]

The embarrassments of the week after Diana's death have also, I think, coloured the way the Princess is perceived. The Queen did exactly as she always had, with dignity and protectively towards her grandsons. But she was judged by Diana's standards in that she was deemed not to SHOW her emotion, or grieve PUBLICLY. This led to public/media anger over the lack of a standard on Buckingham Palace (even though that had long been a proud tradition) and the almost enforced return of the Queen to London on the Friday. Some resentment might result from those events.



If your "old guard" relates generally to the older generation, I think many of us were perturbed and disturbed by the very un-British out-pouring of grief in that week in 1997.

phil

I totally agree with you. I think Grinner Blair should hang his head in shame for not supporting the Queen instead of trying to force her to take part in a popularity contest. He obviously didn’t understand the protocol for such things and if he did he held them in contempt. Wasn’t it Mrs Blair who refused to courtesy to the Queen?

What you say about the totally hyped up nonsense about Diana’s funeral reminded me of an interview with a lady before the actual event. Apparently the route of the procession had been changed and it would now pass right underneath this lady’s (!) balcony. I will never forget the light shining from her eyes and the great big grin as she told the reporter that this news was ‘absolutely wonderful’.

I couldn’t really describe the death of a young woman as being attached to anything that was wonderful.

[Bob Hinton]

Ah yes, because "pit viper in heat" is the language of elevated drawing room conversation. *cough* hypocrite *cough*.

.

No that happens to be a direct quote from someone who knew Diana, very, very well.

[Phil H]

just find it hilarious that the old guard men seem to castigate her for doing what they would have called shrewd decision making in a man.

If by the "old guard men" you mean members of the royal household, then maybe there is another reason for their criticism.

Absolute loyalty and devotion is the creed of most of those who serve the current monarch, and later in her career I think Diana came very closely to breaching that code. She never criticised the Quen herself , but since Elizabeth II is "head of the firm" implied criticism of her children or the stuffines of the "palace" could have been read as aimed indirectly at her.

The embarrassments of the week after Diana's death have also, I think, coloured the way the Princess is perceived. The Queen did exactly as she always had, with dignity and protectively towards her grandsons. But she was judged by Diana's standards in that she was deemed not to SHOW her emotion, or grieve PUBLICLY. This led to public/media anger over the lack of a standard on Buckingham Palace (even though that had long been a proud tradition) and the almost enforced return of the Queen to London on the Friday. Some resentment might result from those events.

I think any of us, if we had devoted a lifetime to excellency in a particular field, might find it hard to deal with someone who came along for a few years, didn't obey the establishment rules and yet got the applause.

If your "old guard" relates generally to the older generation, I think many of us were perturbed and disturbed by the very un-British out-pouring of grief in that week in 1997. Not least because it came from only part of society - I think the other part showed its feelings a few years later with applause for the Queen as she drove away from her mother's lying-in-state; and later at the Golden Jubilee. I think many in society, who were suspicious of Diana for various reasons, were unhappy and uncomfortable with the mass grief and mourning - they came to see Diana, even in death, as in some measure, subversive.

I could go on, but enough for now.

phil

[Ally]

Ah yes, because "pit viper in heat" is the language of elevated drawing room conversation. *cough* hypocrite *cough*.

Phil,

I agree with most of your summary, but I hardly think that casts Diana as an evil manipulator. She was also a good parent, as good as Charles no doubt, and took a hands on approach to her children.

If she woke up one day to realize she'd been used, and was a trophy wife, good on her for using that to her advantage and making sure that she owned the part ( the way she wished to) that she had been cast in. When you get tossed to the lions, you can become their meal or acquire some lion taming skills. I just find it hilarious that the old guard men seem to castigate her for doing what they would have called shrewd decision making in a man.

[Bob Hinton]

Phil H

Yes good summary. Some people don't seem to understand that I have no objection to anyone criticising members of the Royal family - I just object when they seem unable to do so without using the language of the gutter (see above in red), which is certainly not necessary to make a point!

[Phil H]

Ally,

I think Charles - ever the "traditionalist" - thought that in the style of some of his forebears (not least Edward VII) he would be able to sustain a marriage (at least as a facade) and a mistress. In his case, of course, the latter was his real true love.

So far as his marriage is concerned, he does not seem to have been a bad father, and his relationship with William and Harry appears affectionate on both sides. Indeed, I think the lads have paid tribute to what an excellent father he has been.

To me the trouble was that the self-effacing, unsure Diana of the engagement, woke up one day to realise that she was more popular than her husband and began to use that knowledge to advance her position.

Given that she had proved inadequate at the skills that the exisiting royals saw as being their "profession", she started to ignore those and to be almost deliberately challenging in her new touchy-feely approach. It's success, further alienated the royals from her - initially suspicious they were now fearful - and also led to the in-fight with her husband that became ever more "dirty".

No one in this saga emeges with great credit, and it's timing I associate in part with one of the pitfalls of a long reign - the mid-way doldrums.

It is easy to forget that in her early years on the throne, Elizabeth II was something of an icon herself, though not in Diana's league or even that of her sister Margaret. But the Queen has character, something I'm not sure Diana ever achieved.

Phil

[Ally]

Ah I see Bob, your logic is, as ever, completely fascinating. So you believe that because Charles was born Royal, any criticism of his actions in his marriage automatically means one is a rabid anti-royalist. No one can criticize him, for what he did in his own marriage because that makes them "rabid anti-royalists". The womb that he fell out of was a royal one, and therefore, he is immune from condemnation. But his wife, she is perfectly okay to call such things as vicious manipulator, pit viper in heat, promiscuous, etc, and that's perfectly okay.

I made not a single comment about the monarchy, the system of royalism or anything related to "royals". I made comments on the man, not his title.

I think it's time you ran along and took your old folks pills, because your faculties are clearly on the slippy side.

Charles cheated in his marriage, just like Diana. He made a complete hash of it, just like Diana. he married her, while he was in love with someone else, and made no attempt to make it a "real" marriage.

Pointing out that he shares an equal percentage of the blame for what went wrong in their marriage doesn't make one a rabid anti-loyalist, it makes one objective.

I would say you are such a blind royal ass-kisser that you are incapable of being reasoned on this subject therefore you should probably be the one who toddles off before you look like any more of a frothing maniac than you do.

[Phil H]

...the Queen is in her 85th year and still has a work schedule that would make fitter men wilt. She has been doing the job since 1953 – without a break.

1952 actually - the year she succeeded her father - but she had been carrying out tours and engagements since around 1947, as the King's health failed (Trooping the Colour and a visit to America included).

But at the final reckoning I would say that on the whole the British have had one hell of a good deal from the Royal Family – would that our politicians worked so hard for us with such integrity.

I agree entirely.

But I think the Royal Family did meet something unexpected in Diana as The Queen made clear in her broadcast the day before the funeral.

Elizabeth II's reign has been charcaterised by the approach used so successfully by her father and mother (1936-52). But the pomp, the aloofness are 50s-based. Diana couldn't hack the conventional role - formality, speeches, handshakes and curtseys etc. But she undoubtedly showed a more modern, workable style - hugs, emotion, easiness, a reaching out to hitherto unknown groups. And it worked - though I don't think that the Royal Family as whole appreciated that. Diana was a slap in the face to stuffiness, arid protocol and old-fashioned social values.

Look at what William and Catherine are doing today in Canada - approachable, informal, caring, engaging royalty. (Camilla and Charles have also adopted a somewhat easier style.)

Then look at press coverage this morning of Edward at the Monaco wedding - refernces to Ruritanian uniforms and self-awarded medals.

I am fascinated by military uniforms, old and modern, and love royal pagentry, but I do not question that history will see Diana as a catalyst of needed change. I look at an event like the recent British Royal Wedding and feel that we need to look again at how we stage such events. The uniforms - for all their splendour, looked out of place (theatrical almost) in an era where we are less and less prone of dress up - even for weddings and evenings out - the days when people "changed for dinner, or wore white tie to the theatre are long gone. Ordinary people no longer identify, it seems to me, with attitudes and appearances that smell of old-fashioned deference, class divides and an assumed superiority.

So, though it may not happen for a few years yet (not, i think, while the Queen is with us) we we will a scaling back of what has been the visual style of monarchy in the UK, and an evolution to something much more akin to what Diana trail-blazed.

In part this will be dictated by changing times - how long can you sustain the brigade of Guards/Trooping the Colour in a age of defence cuts and other organisational changes within the Forces? How will the State Opening be relevant (in its pomp etc) when/if the Lords go? Will senators wear robes as pers do? If not, what is the relevance of the Queen's "Parliament robe?"

How will a future Coronation be staged when hereditary peers are no longer legislatiors and all peers may be replaced by elected senators or some such? What of the homage? Who will bear the regalia? There are alternatives but I believe the ceremonial will be very different from what was seen in 1953.

So, to conclude, for all her faults and problems, I think it will be Diana who is seen as a major influence on the future style and look of monarchy and how it reaches out to the public.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

ignorant American from across the pond, but listening to Fergie talk, it seemed very clear that people who marry into the royal family from totally outside of it find themselves practically on another planet, an alien world .

You may be ignorant but that is nothing to be ashamed of. People whose entire life’s experience is that of a head of state who is not part of a Royal Family do have difficulty in understanding the system – in precisely the same way I am totally baffled by the various layers of government you have in the USA.

What is most difficult to understand is that once you join a Royal Family your life is not your own anymore – it belongs to the people and it is your duty to serve them for life. That literally means for life – until you are dead. Prince Phillip is now 90 and he still carries out official tasks, the Queen is in her 85th year and still has a work schedule that would make fitter men wilt. She has been doing the job since 1953 – without a break.

It’s not like presidents who serve for a few years and then go on to other things – there is no retirement, no taking it easy, no letting your hair down. You are under a microscope every second of every minute of every hour – you get the idea now.

Just stop to consider your own life, how many times have you made bad decisions, or done something you shouldn’t have? I know I have and I suspect most of us have, but once you’re a member of the Royal Family everything you do is common property.

Do members of the Royal Family make a hash of things? Of course they do – they are human, and human beings make mistakes. If you don’t want mistakes then replace them with a computer.

But at the final reckoning I would say that on the whole the British have had one hell of a good deal from the Royal Family – would that our politicians worked so hard for us with such integrity.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Charles apparently not having a spine

So, what, is Charles actually mentally retarded and incapable of making a decision or standing up for himself?

he managed to keep banging some chick

just a cheating bastard with dreams of being a tampon

Charles was apparently a complete sap

do you really want that kind of a loser as the future head of your country

These are just some of the comments made by Ally recently. But I think the best has to be

Considering I am not a rabid anti-royalist

Really? One would never have guessed. I can’t wait to see how you talk about someone you are against.

Apparently poor Ally can’t grasp the fact that some of us get our information about Charles and Diana from people who actually knew them both – not from the pages of some supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer!

I think it’s about time Ally ran along and played somewhere else – it’s grownups time now.

[kensei]

Just today, I watched an episode of "Oprah" that I recorded several weeks back but the tape then sat unwatched for a while, in which she interviewed Sarah Ferguson, who of course has been even more reviled lately than anything said here about Diana. I know I say this as an ignorant American from across the pond, but listening to Fergie talk, it seemed very clear that people who marry into the royal family from totally outside of it find themselves practically on another planet, an alien world in which the stress of fitting in is so overwhelming that no matter how hard they try they know that whatever they do or say is going to be wrong, and so after a while they begin to hate it so much that they rebel against it and start to do wrong things deliberately. I hope so very much that the same does not happen to the new Princess Katherine. So many have written that this is the marriage that absolutely has to last. Fergie, by the way, said though she is broke now she is living in a house provided to her and even sometimes shared with her by her ex Prince Andrew who she is apprently still extremely friendly with. That surprised me. "Why don't you get married again then?" Oprah asked her. And she basically said, "Oh, nobody wants that!" That recent "Newsweek" piece by Tina Brown on how things would be if Diana was still alive speculated that she too might have found herself surprised to be sharing a close friendship with her ex-husband.

When I read any criticism of Diana, one thing pops into my head, and I'm sorry if this is a vague memory. There was a piece on t.v. where a paparazzi photographer was commenting on a shot he took of her at a resort somewhere just as she had received some devastating news- I'm thinking maybe the death of her mother? Please correct me if I'm wrong- and the awful look of "Oh God, not now!" that was conveyed in the picture as she saw the camera. And the guy actually said, "I felt so bad for her- AS I TOOK THE PICTURE!" Come on, man, where's your common decency? Do you have any? You aimed a camera at someone in a moment of utter black despair and you still pushed the button? That's what Diana's life was like. I for one am willing to cut her a very big break.

[Ally]

Considering I am not a rabid anti-royalist, your argument loses some water.

Considering the poor valet you held up as hard done by wrote a book about his experiences is given sympathy by you, while Diana's friends who do the same are some how considered proof of her lack of character, further causes your judgments to lack credibility.

Considering you are a rabid anti-Dianian who apparently condemns her for sleeping around while excusing Charles for doing the same proves you are, what? A rabid sexist who condones behavior in men he condemns in women?