August Annotations

Great Britons:
Diana’s Role In History Questionable

Diana, whose need for attention was astounding, will forever be remembered only because photographers needed to do their jobs.

Without the son of Queen Elizabeth II, Diana would be an unknown. Because Prince Charles married her, she was then able to access great wealth and privilege, even more so than in her own family. Diana then had the time and money to employ people to make her look the part of a princess. All she was concerned about was an impression and a ‘look’; a mere outer shell. She obsessed over her photos in the newspapers, not her role as a supportive consort.

Looking back at her pre-Windsor days, her fashion sense was naught. So it is quite obvious that her acquired status gave her access to those who were skilled in design and fashion, who thus created an ‘image’ for her. Diana’s hair was dyed consistantly blonde, and her makeup done by only the best makeup artists. The jewelry, stunning clothes, and the makeup that made her face pretty resulted in a glamourous person. But what does that do for humanity? She was not responsible for knowing what was going on in government affairs, nor did she have to help govern Britain. Diana didn’t have any discipline or respect for tradition, and cringed at anything that would educate her about her role. To do so would mean adhering to protocol, and she was far too selfish to do that.

Instead, she made up her own agenda: whatever she could do to “out media” Charles and the Royal Family. The Queen makes an important trip, so Diana shows up somewhere with a new hairstyle. Charles demonstrates his prowess at the cello, Diana strolls across the room, plunks down at a piano, and does her best Bach impression. Charles wants to explain his relationship with Camilla openly and honestly, and Diana throws herself into a short, plunging black dress that left the media gasping for more. The Royal who? The Prince of where? This result left Diana delighted.

The point I am making is this: don’t drag the Monarchy through the muck simply because you don’t agree with them or can’t get along with them. Don’t make them out to be the Bad Guy just because you don’t want to understand their ways. You can live a life of glamour on your own, but leave the monarchy to the mature.

And calling Diana the Queen of Hearts is a bit extreme. This leaves Princess Anne and many other ladies - royal or not - out in the cold. As if Diana is the only one who takes up arms for charity? How insulting. Again, it was only part of her agenda to out maneuver the Royals and get her face in the papers. To grace those actions with the title of “Queen of Hearts” when her heart wasn’t in the right place to begin with is incredibly ignorant.

For this she was included as a Great Briton? How embarassing for Britain’s time-honoured traditions and past noble peoples. At least it is somewhat comforting to see that Winston Churchill just triumphed over the late glamour girl. Without the clothes, jewels and heartwarming stories of trips to the candy shops for sweets, how much interest could Winston generate? But win he did, and I am glad. He had heart.

The reality of the Princess and her life was summed up rather succinctly by Theodore Dalrymple’s article, “The People’s Princess”:

[Burrell’s] revelations so far would have damaged the reputation of the Princess in any age but our own. Those who never admired her always thought her vain, witless, shallow, scheming, egotistical, vulgar, tasteless, sentimental, manipulative, hysterical, and altogether lacking in culture, character, and intelligence (though not without a certain low cunning): but even they never suspected the extent of her promiscuity, which required her butler—actually, her procurer—to smuggle lovers into the palace in the trunk of his car, to be greeted, Danielle Steele–style, by the Princess in a fur coat and jewels, only. Her much publicized psychological travails resulted not so much from the complexity as from the emptiness of her personality.

That is why no revelations about her conduct will make any difference to those who adhere to her cult: a cult to which it is so easy and gratifying to adhere, because it requires nothing in return. Her deep inner emptiness reflects that of modern man, who distracts himself from it, just as she did, by feverish sensation seeking. Thus she was indeed the People’s Princess, but not quite in the sense originally meant: her epithet flatters neither her nor the People.

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty

Washing Off The Muck

Why people seem to believe that Queen Elizabeth hampered Burrell’s trial out of deceit and treachery is beyond me. She tried to stop it ‘to avoid embarrassing revelations’, as some have claimed, thinking the embarassment must be about her or Charles personally. The only REALLY embarassing thing I see is Diana’s many love affairs.

Di’s activities tarnished her reputation, from my perspective. Emerging details from Burrell and others only helps to further dispel the myth that she was some doe-eyed innocent. Her image had already taken a beating with James Hewitt, Will Carling, and Oliver Hoare. Then came revelations about Hasnat Khan, the Pakistani heart surgeon she had desparately been chasing.

What was already known within the aristocracy - that Diana was highly sexed, spoiled and conniving - is now being broadcasted to the British public at large.

The Queen is probably fed up with the accusations and wants Diana’s ghost laid to rest. She cares a great deal about her grandsons William and Harry, and therefore tries to protect them from any further damaging news about their mother. Not only that, but she doesn’t want to have Diana’s scandals attached to her monarchy. Charles was technically an adulterer with Camilla, but he was truly in love with her and wanted to be with ONLY Camilla. This is not a scandal. Diana and her sexual escapades ARE scandal.

This is simply my own personal theory. I do not feel that the Queen is a vindictive person, so therefore halting the trial was not done to hamper justice. If she wanted to cover up something, this was certainly not the way to do it, was it?

Things aren’t made any better by Burrell giving ‘exclusive’ interviews and taking a tour of New York as a quasi-celebrity.

What about the alleged rape though?, I hear you ask. That could’ve been embarassing. Perhaps that’s what they wanted to ‘hide’. But, how would the Queen know about it? The alleged rape involved people in Prince Charles’ staff, so how would she know? Or how could Charles know every single thing taking place within his staff?

It has been alleged that Charles was told, yet still did nothing. When told of the accuser’s past false claims and cries of “wolf”, he decided that the problem would work itself out between the two parties. I am not sure. However, it is ridiculous to hold the family or Charles responsible as if they are the ones who committed a crime.

All of this scandal happening because of other people, and it’s the Queen and the monarchy that gets blamed. MPs are calling for her to be stripped of her powers, and for what? Is this how you thank someone for working so tirelessly for your country for 50 years? Diana blows through London and sets a record of royal backstabbings, and undoes all of the serious dedication and work by George V, VI, and The Queen. Now everyone else, out to make a buck, is taking up the same reigns.

Even in death, the family is still harrassed by her in some form or another. Whether it’s snippets of a Diana book, a dress tour, or Earl Spencer - living in SOUTH AFRICA - complaining that he never sees his nephews. It never ends.

I’ll bet Diana didn’t bank on her legacy harrassing her sons though. Or did she care to think about that?

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty Amended 10.28.03