Like any true anti-monarchist and champagne socialist, I am
fascinated by the British Royal family – so I was tremendously pleased to have the opportunity to review
a new book about Princess Diana’s legacy, which is just out:
Dianaworld
by Edward White
The article appears in the i newspaper today:
You
can’t read the new Diana biography without thinking of Meghan
Sample paragraph:
Both Meghan and Diana went
into a difficult situation – a royal marriage – with a lack of knowledge and
preparation and little help.
But Meghan has better
prospects than Diana, because she has a husband, Prince Harry, who stands
between her and difficult circumstances, and backs her up. Diana’s husband
– then Prince Charles, now King – was the difficult
circumstance.
I have form with Royal books:
Best Books about the Queen & Royal Family
(for the i newspaper)
American reactions to the death of the Queen (opinion
piece, i newspaper)
Tina Brown The Palace Papers (story of the 20th Century Royals, review for i newspaper)
Monica Ali Untold Story (fiction, alt history about Diana)
Book sounds interesting – far more so than another straight biography – though maybe one for the library rather than purchase. The whole “saint and martyr” thing is hard to stomach though I do have more sympathy for her than I used to – she was very young and God knows what advice she was given by friends and family before she committed herself to the marriage – she can’t really have had any idea what she was letting herself in for.
ReplyDeleteI spend very little time thinking about the Royal Family day-to-day, but on the whole fall into the “better the devil you know” camp – if we move to an elected Head of State, the way things are at present we could end up with President Nigel Farage. At least the Royals provide endless gossip, tourism opportunities and an occasional extra Bank Holiday.
Sovay
There was a lot going on there, and she was very young when she started out - when I did the working out for the piece, I was shocked to realize that she died at the same age Meghan married Harry...
DeleteNone of the systems are ever going to be perfect, are they? Some countries do well with a ceremonial president - Ireland for example - so they are a lovely person to do PR, not a powerful tyrant...
What a great review, Moira! Princess Diana really did change the Royal Family, didn't she? At the time, I didn't think of her as pushy, but she had a way of winning people over and fascinating them. She made her presence known, if I can put it that way. You make an interesting comparison with Meghan Markle, too.
ReplyDeleteThanks Margot, and yes you describe her well - she could capture people...
DeleteI think another big difference is that Megan Markle did at least have a career in her own right, whereas Diana didn't - being Princess of Wales was her whole identity. She was so very young. Chrissie
ReplyDeleteIndeed - and Diana came from a background where she wouldn't expect to follow a career. She had no qualifications, and you assume that if she hadn't collided with Charles, she would've done one of those Sloane Ranger-y non-jobs for a few years before marrying a Sloane-y man and settling in the country.
DeleteLooking back, I see Diana almost as a lamb led to slaughter...unprepared for all the things she'd have to face and maybe not quite mature enough for the job. She did pretty well, considering what she was up against, and definitely left her mark on the Royal Family, mostly in a good way despite some wrong moves. Maybe if she'd been a bit older, and better equipped for her position, her life wouldn't have ended so sadly.
ReplyDeleteIt was all very much of its time - no-one thought much of the age gap in those days, the aristocrcacy tended to ignore their daughters' education, and there was till an over-respectful attitude to the Royals in some quarters. I think some of it would have changed anyway.
DeleteI remember the big fuss over infidelity in their marriage and couldn't help comparing it with the situations for historical Royals. Princess Alexandra had to put up with a true philanderer for a husband, and Queen Victoria for a mother-in-law! BTW, the remark about ceremonial presidents made me think of Brad Withers in the Emma Lathen books!
ReplyDeleteBut by all accounts, Princess Alexandra wasn't wholly unhappy with her lot.
DeleteLove that catch of Brad Withers as a ceremonial president!
I certainly didn't want Diana to die but I suspected she would go from bad relationship to bad relationship and have a difficult time aging. This way she is preserved forever as a beautiful princess, which I suspect she would have liked.
ReplyDeleteYes, I always compared her with Linda in The Pursuit of Love - I wanted to put this in the article but there wasn't room. The Bolter says to Fanny
Delete‘Don’t you think perhaps it’s just as well? The lives of women like Linda and me are not so much fun when one begins to grow older.’
‘But I think she would have been happy with Fabrice,’ I said. ‘He was the great love of her life, you know.’
‘Oh, dulling,’ said my mother, sadly. ‘One always thinks that. Every, every time.'
One of the great endings of any book in my important view.
The Bolter knows what she’s talking about - hard to imagine Fabrice would have married Linda if he’d survived the war. All the indications are that he thought of her as a delightful mistress but not serious Duchesse de Sauveterre material; most likely she’d have ended up in the same predicament as Nancy Mitford herself, waiting and waiting for a proposal that never came, until finally he married someone more comme il faut …
DeleteSovay
I fear you are all too right in your prediction: I know the book is a fairytale, but the only truly unbelievable bit is Fabrice rushing round to Linda to tell her solemnly that he loved her.
DeleteAnd yes, Nancy didn't want people to feel sorry for her, but her life with (or not with) Gaston did sound very bleak....
And as CLM suggests above, probably no fairytale ending for Diana either even if the crash hadn't happened - escaping the Royals only to get mixed up with the Al-Fayeds sounds very much like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
DeleteSovay
The words 'grim' and 'bleak' come into my mind about her potential future - all be it surrounded by lavish luxury.
DeleteI thought that the UK should have followed the example of North Korea (the only sensible thing they did) and appointed Elizabeth as Perpetual Queen.
ReplyDeleteThat made me giggle. It would have eased the situation along....
DeleteLoving the idea of Queen Elizabeth as Perpetual Monarch! I felt and feel so sorry for Diana's sons, particularly Harry who is clearly still badly damaged. Not sure she was a lamb to slaughter : her sister Sarah went out with Charles a few years before Diana and was clear she would never have married him 'if he was a dustman or a king' and her sister Jane was married to Robert Fellowes, the Queen's Private Secretary, so Diana should have had some idea of what was going on and what Charles was like before the wedding and what was expected of her. I suspect that both she and Meghan were caught up in the princess myth, when, really, it's just a job. High profile, great clothes etv but just a demanding, slightly boring job with long hours and a lot of rules.
ReplyDeleteYes and - demanding and boring when you are on the job, and quite a commitment, but they have huge amounts of time off, they don't work all that hard, compared with a minimum wage labourer or a doctor. They make a lot of that 'works so hard' - and obviously they can't skive off when it's armistice day or opening of parliament - but it's certainly not more than other people in high profile jobs, and less than some. One is always expected to exempt the late Queen from any such criticism, and she certainly had a powerful sense of duty. But she spent a lot of time at Balmoral and at Sandringham and at the races. Ooh, people say, the boxes, she had to look at the boxes every day... yes well. In their nature they were summaries, and to some extent her choice? a lot of time left over for picnics and hunting and family events...
DeleteI completely agree about the work, so many people work harder in grim conditions and in more important roles for little money and few perks. And many cannot find work at all. I could be wrong but it seems to me that Diana and Meghan thought that as princesses they could do what they wanted and were put out when this wasn't so.
DeleteYes - and I think, for example, filmstars are rightly mocked if they claim that their life is really hard and difficult. I'd like to see a bit more sceptism with the Royal Family.
DeleteNot to mention being some of the richest people in the nation, if not the world! They do live in a fishbowl, so to speak, but although money can't buy happiness it can sure make life easier.
DeleteYes indeed. I don't in general have strong feelings for or against Harry, but in some of his interviews he shows remarkable lack of knowledge of, and empathy for, the way most people live their lives, and the worries and money troubles they have.
DeleteHe did seem bemused by the reality that declaring he wasn't going to do the Royal "job" any more would affect his income - surely not a difficult concept even for a Royal. If one of the footmen leaves, one doesn't go on paying his wages ...
DeleteSovay
An excellent comparison! You think sometimes, these people are supposedly the top family, and could have had the best education ever, but somehow don't seem too bright...
DeleteAs an outsider I imagine that switching to a presidential system would raise all sorts of questions like if a president should have all the powers the British king formally has. Given them to elected presidents might raise the temptation that they start exercising the power, which would change the political system, but people might feel quesy about openly giving them all to the prime minister. In a strange way, having the power formally in hand of someone without democratic legitimacy serves as a check on the prime minister's power, while making it unlikely the power will be checked too often.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't fully understand why the royal family seem so central to British patriotism, to a much great er extent than in other European monarchies.
It is very hard to clear away all the theories and myths and misconceptions and look at exactly what is going on with the Royal Family. People blithely throw around figures ('the Royals bring billions in to the country!' - would love to see that proved) Yesterday I saw (and of course can't remember exactly where) a fascinating list of how much each of the European monarchies costs to their people, and it was something I hadn't seen before. Luxembough (duchy rather than monarchy I suppose) cost the most per capita.
DeleteI'd imagine there are fixed costs, a monarch can only use so many body guards, flunkies and castles, so it does not surprise me Luxembourg is more expensive per capita.
DeleteI love this sentence. I have a friend who would say about some similar remark 'Don't tell X that or he'll write one of his long boring economics articles about it.' I feel that X or anyone else could have a field day with your perception, calculating the optimal numbers, assigning flunkies per castle...
DeleteJohan - re: British patriotism - a major complication that the country is made up of four different nations - so no question of eg just waving the St George's Cross and declaring a national holiday on 23 April as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish will be justifiably displeased. The Royal Family are at least a unifying factor from that point of view.
DeleteSovay
It would be cheap (and sadly not true) to say they unify us in our dislike of them!
DeleteThe thought did cross my mind ...
DeleteSovay
😊😊😊
DeleteI've always seen Diana as rather like one of those Elizabeth Jane Howard girls - upper class, not educated, not told anything about sex or the realities of marriage (to anyone, never mind a member of the Royal family), imagining themselves in love after the briefest of encounters and effectively married off by their family. Even if Diana herself didn't know what she was letting herself in for, I'm sure her family did.
ReplyDeleteI think that very good description would apply equally to Diana's mother - who then scandalously ran away from her unhappy marriage. I'm guessing there was an attitude of 'that's what life's like, get on with it, don't complain.'
Delete