A New Diana?

[Curryong]

I don't need to read 'the Press clippings', Lady Nimue. I lived through the Diana years, mostly in Britain, from 1981 until 1997. I was an adult. And can remember quite clearly how many ordinary people, not Journalists, felt about Diana through that decade and a half. There are many many people cherish her memory today, twenty one years after her death.

 

[Missy-]

I don't need to read 'the Press clippings', Lady Nimue. I lived through the Diana years, mostly in Britain, from 1981 until 1997. I was an adult. And can remember quite clearly how many ordinary people, not Journalists, felt about Diana through that decade and a half. There are many many people cherish her memory today, twenty one years after her death.

Yes, it was a case of you had to be there. I truly feel sorry for the people who have bought into the revisionist history that Charles and his friends would love you to believe. They should be green with envy that they weren't part of the magic as it happened.

 

[Muhler]

Whoever that person - or couple - might be, it is overwhelmingly likely that that person will come from either the British or the Spanish royal families. They are the only ones supported by a world-language, enabling their followers to follow them effortlessly on a day to day basis.

So I think a relevant question is: Will Kate or Meghan, alternatively teams Kate & William or Meghan & Harry, reach a similar level and have a similar popular impact as Diana?

At present my money would be on team Harry & Meghan. Mainly for the glamour effect, but certainly also for the rapport Harry in particular seems to have with the public. He's a natural. And he is marrying someone who is very extrovert.
There is nothing wrong with team Kate and William. They are however IMO more introvert, more private. IMO that will ensure that will have a fairly level popular rating all their lives - and that's not a bad thing, mind you! The keyword here being stability.

Please forgive me for being tactless and cynical. Diana, like say Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi and Kennedy before her, made the PR-masterstroke of dying while they were pretty much on top. That made them forever great.
Had they lived on, they may not have had the very high status they have today.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, there is always a special aura about famous figures who were suddenly, and violently 'taken too soon'. Iconic status sometimes happens with the very very old as well, though.

 

[Kitty1224]

Yes, Meghan will be famous. However, the world of Diana was the the 1980's and 1990's, a place of print media and TV, of glossy magazines that women all over the Western world would buy every week, to pore over the stories of Diana and her children and her fashions and events.

Yes, there was a bit of criticism from British journalists in the last year of Diana's life that dented her popularity, but that was forgotten when she died and there was this tremendous outpouring of grief at her death.

It wasn't an Internet world however. I find it very difficult to imagine that sort of magic on a global scale can be focused on one person today, however loved they become by the general public, when behind every computer keyboard there is a potential critic.

On Tumblr and on Twitter masses of people are ready to tear into royals and celebrities' hair, clothes, motivations, work, demeanour, past life, present lifestyle etc. For every one person praising there can be ten ready to stick knives in, metaphorically speaking, of course!

That's why I don't think it such starry eyed enchantment as Diana provoked in her lifetime will ever happen in that way again. It's a much more cynical place in lots of ways and that world has gone for ever.

“r. I find it very difficult to imagine that sort of magic on a global scale can be focused on one person today, however loved they become by the general public”. Yeah that’s true but it can happen still. Just takes that one special person.

Also remember it was Diana everyone wanted to see and meet. Heads of states, foreign leaders, ect... I guess she really was great with diplomacy as well.

 

[Kitty1224]

What an interesting topic, Kitty1224! I think in the early 80s the world was still fairly naive and could suspend disbelief long enough to get caught up in the fairy tale of the virginal princess and charming prince who lived happily ever after. But that naivete died with Charles' and Diana's separation and divorce.

If anyone can revive the fairy tale it's Meghan, but I don't feel she is someone who all ages will relate to. That was a huge part of Diana's charm was that she related to everyone, young and old across all boundaries. The old ladies at the beauty parlor through to the punk rockers in London all knew of her and the great majority liked if not loved her. I don't see Meghan having the charisma to appeal to the vast majority of people like Diana did.

Sorry but Meghan doesn’t fill that role and won’t be able to in my opinion. There isn’t even as much excitement for their “wedding”.

 

[Curryong]

I don't think every major network in the US (and the same here in Australia, incidentally) would be sending large media contingents to a wedding no-one is interested in or excited about.

The Charles/Diana wedding was the biggest wedding in my lifetime of Royal watching and it was an enchanted day. However, as I've said, it was a different world in the 1980s.

 

[Muhler]

Diana had a number of huge advantages that another royal may not have today.

By the late 80's which I will consider her zenith, she was a member of the British royal family, which was basically the only royal family, apart from the princely family of Monaco, that the international press followed. That in a time when the international press was almost totally dominated by papers, news agencies and networks, who spread the word so to speak, in English.
That in a world that to a far larger extent than today was dominated by the English language, in regards to global news.
So the Spanish royal family may have got a good coverage in the Spanish speaking world, but very little mentioning elsewhere.
There was no Internet. That means there were next to no alternatives at all to the international press - which as mentioned before was totally dominated by English speaking news outlets. So whatever happened in other royal families, got very little and very irregular coverage. There was very little opportunity for someone in say Argentina to follow the Swedish royals.
So Internet has changed the whole scene dramatically.

Apart from that, Diana had very little competition in her time.
In a world that was much less international minded and global, most royal families focused mainly on domestic matters and as such was mainly covered by their own countries and only relevant to at best their neighboring countries.
That began to change after 2000, where the current generation of CP-couples (some have now become regent-couples) have begun to enter the world stage and begun to take up international issues and as such got an increasing international coverage.


In another way Diana had very little competition as well. The princesses, again apart of Monaco, who could conceivably have competed with her at that time, where mainly either older than her or in their teens.

On top of that Diana had an unquestionable and instinctive flair for PR. In an age where media-advisors and media-training was almost unheard of among most royal families.

Not to mention that she was blessed with great people-skills. But that's outside the scope of this post.

 

[Denville]

that is true Muhler.. Some of the added excitement was due to charles' position as future King and there hadn't been a big royal wedding, except Ann'es in a long time. it was a huge event..
But some of it was down to Diana. Whethter you like her or not, she had a special magic and people like that don't come along that often. Meghan has her fans, (I'm not one of them) but I don't think she has that sort of special magic. I don't think she will bring the glamour to the monarchy that Diana did... (nor will Kate).

 

[Lady Nimue]

Not the topic of the thread but a quick rejoinder....

Take it from a contemporary of Diana's, it was a very enchanted time, made so by Diana and her persona, flawed as it was. Diana and Diana alone, no one cared about Charles who was old well before his time and totally out of touch with the common man. And therein lies the rub, Charles and his massive ego couldn't take his wife being a superstar and taking the spotlight away from him.

You misunderstand: I was alive just not paying close attention. I did see it all through my mother's eyes who would have debated whether it was an enchanted time. (My obsession as I grew up was with the glorious Queen Sylvia of Sweden: now there was a lady worth emulating imo). Diana left me unimpressed as a child. As best as I recall the tenure of Diana was unsavory as you yourself demonstrate with the diss of Charles. Not pleasant. It was something Diana gleefully stoked, even I saw that as a child, didn't have to have my mother point it out tho she did (as an illustrative lesson to me).

I don't need to read 'the Press clippings', Lady Nimue. I lived through the Diana years, mostly in Britain, from 1981 until 1997. I was an adult. And can remember quite clearly how many ordinary people, not Journalists, felt about Diana through that decade and a half. There are many many people cherish her memory today, twenty one years after her death.

I trust you were a fan and saw her through a gauzy glow. I would suggest your memory is faulty, however, regarding the atmosphere back then which approached the unpleasantness of a throbbing toothache. She demeaned the BRF. Made them a laughingstock. It was one drama after another starting in the mid to late 80's. Some of it wild and weird stuff (Ascot umbrella poking, would you call that 'enchanting?) It's like there are two parallel universes.

In spades anyone would be able to surpass Diana given the higher standards of behavior demanded of royals. (Only wish it included politicians!) BTW I think the higher standards are in place as a reaction to what Diana engaged in: for example it is expected that the wife of a royal not upstage the royal spouse. Diana-effect.

Yes, it was a case of you had to be there. I truly feel sorry for the people who have bought into the revisionist history that Charles and his friends would love you to believe. They should be green with envy that they weren't part of the magic as it happened.

I was there and I wasn't impressed. Her fashion in the 80's was wince-able. It shifted later but she was so full of herself that she was hard to watch (from a child's perspective). Have no idea how 'Charles and his friends' come into this.

Trust me, no one should be 'green with envy' at having missed the toxic hysteria and toxic atmosphere generated by Diana as she purposely set about to polarize the public against Charles and the institution she married into. It was pretty grim watching it all unfold. Nothing 'enchanting' about any of it imo.

I don't think we will ever have that kind of angst played out 'globally' again, or I sincerely hope not. It was an embarrassment when it took place, it's an embarrassment when one watches all the old video clips.

Diana's 'gift' was her charisma which had everything to do with how she 'played' her energy. Rock stars do what she was doing. It's not unique. Just saying. Give me honest folk doing good work anytime. Hopefully there will never be another single person who is allowed by the tabloids (she was really a creature of the tabloids) to play the public so shamelessly. Not healthy. My 2 cents.

 

[Curryong]

Well, there we will have to differ, Lady Nimue, as I saw Diana several times in the flesh in the 1980s and 1990s, and I was an adult. It was a privilege.

She did indeed have an aura and a huge amount of charisma and, yes, people were enchanted. One of them, whom I know personally was a policeman guarding her when she and Charles came to Australia the first time, a man whom she questioned about his background (Welsh) and had a joke with.

As a result of that personal touch he has had good memories of Diana for over thirty years. He can remember everything about her from that short time in Victoria. How she spoke, how she looked, her laugh, (as can I.) Charles? He never spoke to any of the police ever.

My memory is perfectly fine, actually, and I don't appreciate being told it must be faulty. And if I see Diana through a gauzy glow' better that than than unrelenting bile, bias and dislike of a woman who did an enormous amount of good in the world.

 

[Missy-]

Lady Nimue, I am not going to go point-by-point through your strange dissertation, which I find disturbingly unbalanced, especially when speaking of the dead. I will say that just because you were alive doesn't mean you were aware, it's obvious to me you weren't.

 

[Missy-]

Well, there we will have to differ, Lady Nimue, as I saw Diana several times in the flesh in the 1980s and 1990s, and I was an adult. It was a privilege.

She did indeed have an aura and a huge amount of charisma and, yes, people were enchanted. One of them, whom I know personally was a policeman guarding her when she and Charles came to Australia the first time, a man whom she questioned about his background (Welsh) and had a joke with.

As a result of that personal touch he has had good memories of Diana for over thirty years. He can remember everything about her from that short time in Victoria. How she spoke, how she looked, her laugh, (as can I.) Charles? He never spoke to any of the police ever.

My memory is perfectly fine, actually, and I don't appreciate being told it must be faulty. And if I see Diana through a gauzy glow' better that than than unrelenting bile, bias and dislike of a woman who did an enormous amount of good in the world.

Hah, now I'm the one who is green with envy! I would have loved to have seen her, I bet she was radiant.

There will never be another. Thank you so much for sharing your first person experience.

 

[Elan]

Diana's 'gift' was her charisma which had everything to do with how she 'played' her energy. Rock stars do what she was doing. It's not unique. Just saying. Give me honest folk doing good work anytime. Hopefully there will never be another single person who is allowed by the tabloids (she was really a creature of the tabloids) to play the public so shamelessly..

In Ken Wharfe's book, a story recounts Diana visiting the Passage Day Centre which exists mainly to help cast offs in society of drug, alcohol, and mental illness issues. Somewhat apprehensive, he gave her some elbow room to engage and talk freely to them for a while, asking about their subsistence, shelter etc.

After an hour, a man in his 40's in tattered clothes, approached in a foul mouthed manner: "It's all right for the likes of you to come down here just for half an hour. You want to try living on the streets..."

Assuring Ken, she let the man finish and looked directly in his eyes: "Well, the reason I am here is to see exactly what it is like, so that I can help in any way I can."

 

[Lady Nimue]

It's a peculiar thing this Diana business. I always vow I will not engage. Inevitably do and the usual ad hominem start. Why is that? Curious. Unbalanced view? Hmmm.....at no time have I talked about Diana as a person, nor (I believe) denigrated her. I have been solely concerned (in this context) with her 'global impact' and whether we will see a replication. I hope not, but we might, because history does repeat as we know. JMO.

The issue of the thread is will there be another like Diana. Was Diana sexy? I think she was, that could be replicated. Was she charismatic? For sure, and that could be replicated. Was she a good person, did she mean well in her public persona, and do good work within the context of her circumspect life? I think one can give her all that, and that could be replicated. I am not debating Diana as a personal event in the individual lives of her fans who loved her. For a variety of reasons she riveted the imagination of many. It was unique or seemed unique at the time for sure though I'm sure there are examples in history of similar fascinations. But the gestalt that was Diana as an event on the world stage is far more than just her personal impact on individual fans.

As much as Diana was all those good and pleasant things, Diana was also a polarizing, and in many ways destructive, force in the public arena, regarding her marriage and the institution she married into. I am sorry if this causes distress but it's there in the record, and my hope for the sake of everyone is that the destructiveness not ever be repeated with anyone else. I think that's reasonable. Is it possible that it will be repeated? Might be, one day. But that 'might' has more to do with human nature, I think, than anything unique to Diana.

Well, there we will have to differ, Lady Nimue, as I saw Diana several times in the flesh in the 1980s and 1990s, and I was an adult. It was a privilege.

I do not dispute your sense of privilege. We are not differing.

As a result of that personal touch he has had good memories of Diana for over thirty years. He can remember everything about her from that short time in Victoria. How she spoke, how she looked, her laugh, (as can I.) Charles? He never spoke to any of the police ever.

Here you demonstrate the odd nature of the loyalty: Diana impacts you, and at once Charles must be denigrated. What is that about? That is part of Diana's legacy: this permission given to hate Charles. It's odd.

My memory is perfectly fine, actually, and I don't appreciate being told it must be faulty. And if I see Diana through a gauzy glow' better that than than unrelenting bile, bias and dislike of a woman who did an enormous amount of good in the world.

I apologize if I offended. Truly. Yet the facts are the facts. The tabloids were screaming headlines that were cringeworthy: a Princess of Wales stalking a married man? Under threat of arrest? That's the other side of this story and I hope there is no repeating it. Don't you agree? That's not 'bile, bias, and dislike', that's the facts. That's what was going on, while the public was whipped up into a frenzied froth of animus towards the BRF and Charles in particular. Do you not agree that that took place?

Did she do an enormous amount of good in the world? No. She was not a mover or shaker. She had some good moments for sure (AIDS, Landmines) but there was not a lot of substance or depth. It was all photo-ops and drama as I recall. Had she lived perhaps that all would have changed. We'll never know.

P.S. Most everyone we discuss on TRF is dead. Discussing historical events means dead people will be analyzed. Not sure what the dead comment is suppose to mean. The living royals get subjected to appalling negativity. How that is better confounds me.

Enough! I'm outa here. It's never pleasant when the posting gets fervid and personal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Take it from a contemporary of Diana's, it was a very enchanted time, made so by Diana and her persona, flawed as it was. Diana and Diana alone, no one cared about Charles who was old well before his time and totally out of touch with the common man. And therein lies the rub, Charles and his massive ego couldn't take his wife being a superstar and taking the spotlight away from him.

No, I don't think there will ever be another Diana. As Stevie Nicks wrote in the song 'Rhiannon': Once in a million years a woman like her rises.

I too am a contemporary of Diana's and I know many people who were far more interested in Charles than Diana seeing her as a pretty girl with nothing else to recommend her (both males and females).

I knew one 'fan' who had everything that was ever printed about her - until the Morton book when she burnt the lot as Diana wasn't worthy of respect anymore after that.

Other than her most of my friends and acquaintances saw through her from Day 1 - a scheming young lady who was in way above her head and then led press adoration make her believe she was greater than the family into which she had married - someone who had no idea of her role in the scheme of things.

Charles, on the other hand, spoke about real world issues and was more than 'in touch' - he was ahead of his time.

 

[Mbruno]

The Diana smearing campaign, which aims to portray her as manipulative/scheming, sometimes shallow, sometimes "mentally disturbed" or worse, simply doesn't match the reality of someone who touched the lives of so many people , as Tony Blair put it, "in Britain, throughout the world", and who, in the opinion of that many people and of her own sons BTW, was remembered as caring and compassionate.

 

[Muhler]

Ahem, perhaps we should return to the original question: Can any present day royals reach the same level as Diana, in regards to media coverage - and public sentiments? ?

 

[Mbruno]

Ahem, perhaps we should return to the original question: Can any present day royals reach the same level as Diana, in regards to media coverage - and public sentiments? ?

I don't think any royal will reach that level of worldwide media coverage and public sentiment in our lifetime. In the distant future, I don't know, but, as a general trend, the popularity of royal families has been declining over the years. People (and the press) in general are far more critical of and less deferential to royals than they used to be.

Another point is that, for better or for worse, the British Royal Family is de facto the only RF that gets worldwide coverage: the Spanish RF is well covered in Latin America, which is a big region, but not elsewhere (e.g. in the US, where most international media outlets are based); the Swedish RF at best gets coverage in Scandinavia and Germany, maybe in the Baltic countries too, and other European RFs (in Belgium, Denmark, Norway, even the Netherlands) tend to make headlines only in their own domestic "markets" so to speak. The potential pool of "new Dianas" is rather limited then.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Having just read Lady Nimue's post #21, it made me think back to how I reacted to the Diana effect at the time. And bring that to bear on the question at hand.

As an American, a decade younger than Charles, before Diana came along, I found the BRF an odd mix of dull and silly. I saw the Queen as very dedicated but out of touch and her children as silly fools playing at love, sexual attraction, polo and the like.

Diana changed that for me. Because I found her interesting, appealing and relatable, I "discovered an interest" in the BRF. So for me, she filled a void that I perceived in the family.. Wherever her flaws, she was mesmerizing.

Because I do not find the current iteration of the BRF either dull or silly (OK, silly sometimes) I think there is not a VOID to fill. We have glamour, attractiveness, humor, intensity, relate ability, stability, caring, intelligence, stability, dedication. I think the world will only create another "Diana" when we need one. So at least one or two generations from now.

I am obviously from the camp that believes the BRF creates itself in the image of what their people need at any given point in history. JMO.

Edit: I'd add that it could well be a man who fills that next "void" depending on the needs of the realm.

 

[Winnie]

I don't think any royal will reach that level of worldwide media coverage and public sentiment in our lifetime. In the distant future, I don't know, but, as a general trend, the popularity of royal families has been declining over the years. People (and the press) in general are far more critical of and less deferential to royals than they used to be.

I agree. The world's public are not really that enchanted over the "Royal" title as they were 50 or so years ago. With the mass media we know immediately the flaws and brilliance of each. There is less naivety in the world now and people quicker to find fault [with actions, friends, clothes, etc.] than they did years ago. There was no such thing as a Royal Forum that critiqued every little section of a royal's life in detail. I dread to think what a forum would have done to present Queen back then.

My personal outlook on all this is that 200 years from now the history books will mention Diana, Catherine, Mary, Letizia and Maxima as lovely ladies to Kings. The historical writer will then give his/her opinion of what she was like depending on the slant he/she wants to portray. A sweet helping woman or thorn in husband's side. No different than today when authors want to change or eliminate parts of history. Me, I am not gullible enough anymore to think that human nature will change and I believe that the almighty dollar will still run reporters lives, not necessarily 100% facts.

 

[Osipi]

Ahem, perhaps we should return to the original question: Can any present day royals reach the same level as Diana, in regards to media coverage - and public sentiments? ?

I don't think so. After the Diana years, the veil of mystique of being royal was lifted so much that it caused Charles to quip "we're a bloody soap opera". Diana grew to depend on her own "star power" and used it and manipulated it to her own advantage. Diana's "star power" was hers and hers alone. As in singular person. The "lone wolf" princess.

Will we see the likes of that again? I sincerely hope not. IMO, the women that are now part of the "Firm" of the BRF are cautious that this does not happen. There will always be hyper and global interest in royal princesses but these princesses will not use it to stroke their own egos and gain their own "star power" but more importantly, continue to work as a part of "Team Windsor" and be shown to actively support their husbands and their husband's family. They know how to work as a team.

In the 80s it was "Diana". Today we have "Charles and Camilla", "William and Kate" and "Harry and Meghan" and "Edward and Sophie". Heck, in some respects, we still have "Andrew and Sarah".

 

[Kitty1224]

that is true Muhler.. Some of the added excitement was due to charles' position as future King and there hadn't been a big royal wedding, except Ann'es in a long time. it was a huge event..
But some of it was down to Diana. Whethter you like her or not, she had a special magic and people like that don't come along that often. Meghan has her fans, (I'm not one of them) but I don't think she has that sort of special magic. I don't think she will bring the glamour to the monarchy that Diana did... (nor will Kate).

Yeah she did have a special magaic presence about her that doesn’t come along very often. It’s why when I read about her and how big powerful men and those in power around the world wanted to meet her and only her and drawn to her that was great diplomatically for the British monarchy too!

 

[Kitty1224]

I don't think any royal will reach that level of worldwide media coverage and public sentiment in our lifetime. In the distant future, I don't know, but, as a general trend, the popularity of royal families has been declining over the years. People (and the press) in general are far more critical of and less deferential to royals than they used to be.

Another point is that, for better or for worse, the British Royal Family is de facto the only RF that gets worldwide coverage: the Spanish RF is well covered in Latin America, which is a big region, but not elsewhere (e.g. in the US, where most international media outlets are based); the Swedish RF at best gets coverage in Scandinavia and Germany, maybe in the Baltic countries too, and other European RFs (in Belgium, Denmark, Norway, even the Netherlands) tend to make headlines only in their own domestic "markets" so to speak. The potential pool of "new Dianas" is rather limited then.

Interesting. Yep the British royal family is the most famous one and gets the most media coverage. I also think because we live in a social media world where we know so many things going on at once that it will be hard for a person to be above all of that and globally significant like Diana was. But it would be amazing to have another “Diana” again.

 

[Osipi]

Yeah she did have a special magaic presence about her that doesn’t come along very often. It’s why when I read about her and how big powerful men and those in power around the world wanted to meet her and only her and drawn to her that was great diplomatically for the British monarchy too!

It would have been if Diana had actively worked with the good of the monarchy in mind. For the most part, I don't think she did. She was working for the greater glory of Diana.

 

[jacqui24]

I think we need to understand that Diana became as big of an icon as she did due to multiple reasons that created the perfect storm. It's not just her beauty and charisma. It's many things that were happening at the same time that were beyond even Diana's control, but she went along with it and used it to her advantage. The press was changing, the world was changing, but the royal family wasn't. There wasn't really a glamorous royal when Diana became the style icon that she was. Diana did have a way to connect with people that other royals didn't. And of course, there is a Goliath and David element to it when she stood up to the royal family and didn't just go away. And in every story, there is the villain, which was mostly Camilla (who was not nearly as beautiful), but also Charles (not as pretty either). On top of that, Diana was an exceptional humanitarian and took on issues that were important, but some traditionalists thought weren't "appropriate" for members of the royal family.

Had she lived, I don't think she would still be this icon. Everything that has happened since then would've chipped away at this magic that was surrounding her.

Do I think there will be another Diana? No, I don't. And it's for the good. Diana lived life in high ups and low downs. It's not any way to live a happy and fulfilling life. I don't wish that on anyone. I was afraid as soon as I read the original post that Meghan was going to get dragged in, and of course she was. I don't think Meghan intends to be another Diana in every sense of the word. I think there are aspects of Diana that she admires, but I don't think she's the type that are to go nuclear on her family. We have to remember that in all of this, there were two young boys that were subjected to things children shouldn't have to deal with and it made their lives very difficult at times.

 

[Kitty1224]

It would have been if Diana had actively worked with the good of the monarchy in mind. For the most part, I don't think she did. She was working for the greater glory of Diana.

I can see that but also I believe it was her presence that drew people to her and she used that for a greater good and parliament and the foreign office knew she had all these powerful people awe into star struck. Sorry goes Diana visited France on a solo visit in 1992 and she wowed Mitterrand and his wife and the French people. She was called the Queen of Paris in France and also Lady D lol. But the visit was extremely successful. Charles went to France 2 weeks later and it was a disaster.

 

[Osipi]

I can see that but also I believe it was her presence that drew people to her and she used that for a greater good and parliament and the foreign office knew she had all these powerful people awe into star struck. Sorry goes Diana visited France on a solo visit in 1992 and she wowed Mitterrand and his wife and the French people. She was called the Queen of Paris in France and also Lady D lol. But the visit was extremely successful. Charles went to France 2 weeks later and it was a disaster.

All for the greater glory of Diana though. It got to the point where the government was calling her a "loose cannon". Looking at it the way you're looking at it is making it into a popularity contest. Popularity and fame are fleeting. The reality is that over the years, Charles has accomplished far more for the greater glory of the UK and its people than Diana ever would.

I think its wiser to look at accomplishments than to look at popularity. Hitler was also quite popular among his people in his time with a charismatic personality.

 

[Kitty1224]

All for the greater glory of Diana though. It got to the point where the government was calling her a "loose cannon". Looking at it the way you're looking at it is making it into a popularity contest. Popularity and fame are fleeting. The reality is that over the years, Charles has accomplished far more for the greater glory of the UK and its people than Diana ever would.

I think its wiser to look at accomplishments than to look at popularity. Hitler was also quite popular among his people in his time with a charismatic personality.

Well I’m sorry but I have to disagree. It’s not only just popularity but like others have said it was about Diana. She had something not everyone has. She did well diplomatically and no other females in my opinion have come close to her starpower and presence.

 

[Mbruno]

I think its wiser to look at accomplishments than to look at popularity. Hitler was also quite popular among his people in his time with a charismatic personality.

You are not seriously comparing Diana to Hitler, are you ? That comment was way out of line.

As for Diana working "for her greater glory", I think that is also unfair. What "glory" could she have gained from embracing humanitarian causes that at the time were off-limits for royals ? I believe she genuinely cared about those issues and was not doing it for self-reward.

If you mean though that Diana had her own agenda within the RF, I'd say everybody does to a certain extent. Camilla certainly has her agenda too, as does Kate, but Kate is far more discreet and more skillful in pursuing it than Diana was. If we were to believe the fictional play "Charles III", we would probably be led to think that Kate is actually a modern version of Lady Macbeth ! Thankfully, it is just fiction.