isthismutton?

Translate

Search this blog

Friday, August 31, 2007

The Diana Myth

The Sunday Times ran a thought provoking article by Germaine Greer headlined "The Diana Myth." At last, I thought, someone who thinks the same as I do about Princess Diana.

Today, with the Diana Memorial service, it's wall-to-wall Diana. But it's not as if this is a one off. She never goes away. Not only is there is a steady flow of books from shabby spongers, with the contents increasingly becoming like Chinese Whispers, we have the Mail and Express stoking the coals of the ludicrous theories about conspiracy and murder. Why should the royal family or anyone want to kill Diana, when she was no longer married to Prince Charles? True, she was making a fool of herself with a succession of men (Gilby, Hewitt, the doctor, Dodi to name but four, and then there were hundreds of calls to someone she fancied but who was married, Oliver Hoare), but there was no reason to murder her at that time.

I think her supporters like to think she was murdered because it implies mystery and glamour, whereas the reality was: she died in a car crash where the driver was over the drink drive limit.

The French categorically denied she was pregnant, and a recent report said she was not serious about Dodi anyway but merely trying to get back at the Asian doctor she was apparently in love with.

I'm amazed at how so many have been duped by Diana over the years, and the way she has been elevated to folk hero or saint status. Her supporters will say she did a lot of work for charity. True, but no more than the Princess Royal. End of discussion. And does the Princess Royal ring the tabloids to tip them off about visits to homeless people or AIDS victims at midnight? No, she doesn't. Diana did frequently, apparently.

Diana's supporters will also talk about the magic she had with the ordinary person in the street: her warmth and so on. Well, given that our royal family is sadly dysfunctional in that they are so uptight and repressed, anyone showing a bit of warmth would stand out. But I don't think it's so unusual in the real world. And she was a nursery nurse, so you would expect her to be empathetic.

If you take away the "warmth" and the good works for charity, you have left many undesirable qualities which get brushed under the carpet. Attention seeking. Passive aggression. Neediness.

Diana's role and reputation seem to have been blown out of all proportion to reality, and I for one wish we would move on. Finally we have a woman who makes Prince Charles happy (who always made him happy) who is content to let him, as heir to the throne, have all the limelight. She does not resort to playing games in the media, even when vilified. She is a far more suitable character to be Queen than the unstable and star struck Diana.

1 comment:

featherfour said...

THANK YOU. It's nice to be a bit of sense about the whole Diana thing and to know I'm not the only clear headed person in the world.

She was just a media slut (did I just say that out loud?), cheap and manipulative.

I hope that someday in the future people will look back and see that the real tragedy, the truly star-crossed lovers were Charles and Camilla. Okay, so neither of them were as photogenic as pretty-pretty, head tilted to the same angle as a Barbie doll's Di, but they love each other and I for one am glad they're together.

amanda
lrw.fathen.net

Gadget

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.