Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales,

 Why Are We Still So Concerned About Princess Diana?

It has been almost 25 years since Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales, died in a car chase in Paris. 

She was already a global figure, but her tragic death somehow heightened his prominence. It was only after Diana’s death, when UK Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered a poignant speech, that he began calling her “the princess of the people” – a popular and enduring word.

And now, it seems to be everywhere. In July, which would be his 60th birthday, a statue of the late King of Kensington Palace was unveiled, surrounded by unforgettable people – me – Diana’s favorite flower. She is not treated as a real person in these various ways, but moreover as a mysterious concept: a victim and a martyr – an image from which he can express himself.

Diana has been named on the screen before. In 2013, Naomi Watts starred in Diana, a biopic depicting the last two years of a princess’s life, including her romance with Hasnat Khan, a cardiologist. (Watts will later describe the film as “Shipwreck.”. Larraín’s Spencer, who plays Kristen Stewart. Legal: We are in the Renaissance.

This may be fueled by Crown’s fame and ongoing stories involving Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who left royal life last year. Comparisons between Meghan and Diana have become commonplace because of their shared experience of strong anti-monarchy, institutional expectations, and the brutal treatment of each woman by the media.

Part of the reason why Diana’s death was so memorable was to present it to the public at an unprecedented rate. Compared to the death of large numbers of previous predecessors (e.g., JFK), the new presence of the 24-hour news cycle reinforced the milestone of the disaster. The danger – and the speculation around it – has been constantly exposed, as well as the consequences. In the meantime, it seemed that an ongoing, global vigil was taking place.

Diana also died just as the internet was starting to spread – another tool that contributed to her program hero, more recently due to social media. Gen Z’ers used the act of Diana as canonization as a distorted way to mock boomers on Facebook. Corrin’s clip as a shy Diana with running eyes has become a meme. And Taylor Swift’s latest fashion trend has quickly drawn a contrast to the now-defunct princess dress that is the motto of revenge.

But the production of recent works such as Diana: The Musical and Spencer proves that Diana is more than just a cultural reference tool; it is considered a myth. The repetitive exhumation of her story shows the superficial ways in which both artists and the media want to describe him and use her, rather than give a real insight into his life. She is not treated as a real person in these various ways, but moreover as a mysterious concept: a victim and a martyr – an image from which he can express himself. In 1997, while exploring why he and his friends were deeply moved by Diana’s sudden death, author Francine du Plessix Gray cited the princess’s relationship: her experience as a lonely but married woman, the bitter disappointment and betrayal of men, the way. he seemed lost when the deeds he thought were done. “All the many women have suffered from a debilitating, painful experience for her grief,” wrote Gray in New Yorker.

Diana’s death would have been a turning point in human history – especially considering the circumstances surrounding her death. Instead, we continue to awaken Diana for fun, exploring new versions of her story and emphasizing its most traumatic parts, all without self-consciousness. With a new retelling of Diana’s story, we seem to move on to a myth, distancing ourselves from the reality and complexity of who she was, what made her special, and what we can learn from both her life and death.

The recorded product – which is said to tell “a story you thought you only knew” – is shared by the general public and critics alike (The Guardian has given you a 1-star review). In its defense, not all is bad. The actors are talented and dedicated, doing everything they can with material things. The show made some amazing changes and the redesign of Diana’s wardrobe is good (even though Diana herself thought she was too stressed out on her wardrobe and was sold to 79 outfits for charities). The portrayal of Charles and Camilla’s music as an old star-studded couple feels refreshing, and Diana admits to how the princess became so clever and sophisticated – a fact often revealed in the portrayal of her life.

that her illness preceded her royal life: “It all started because [my sister] Sarah had anorexia and I worshiped her so much that I wanted to be like her.”

Her life and story were made much easier, especially living in her own trauma.

Establishing a three-day situation and throwing out all of his trauma – especially at a time when you may have won a lot – ignores his evolution. Diana was a kaleidoscopic person, experiencing many changes and stages; it reduces the handling of something that he has produced at one time as permanent or direct. For example, she regretted calling herself stupid – in an attempt to make the child feel comfortable – because that label was following her (and it was emphasized that nausea in Diana: The Musical).”They put together all the bad stuff in one weekend that licensed poetry away,” author Ingrid Seward told the Telegraph. Seward, who knew and interviewed Diana shortly before her death, does not believe that the princess considered herself a victim: “He saw himself as a single woman before the end of his marriage. He was joking about everything, that’s how he dealt with life – he was crying or laughing. “

Fact: The real Diana – whose warm commercials are sorely lacking in Spencer and in other dramas – was known for her unattractive and humorous appearance, according to her loved ones and various acquaintances. The princess even made a joke in public about speculation about bulimia and her attitude. “Ladies and gentlemen, I think you have been very lucky to have your sponsor here today; I have to put my head down most of the day. I have to be dragged by the minute by men in white coats, ”he said in a 1993 speech. “So if it’s okay with you, I thought I could postpone my emotional turmoil at the right time.”

Cultural revisions have been commonplace lately, as have our desire for collective reconciliation. The public has changed the speech of previously abused women like Monica Lewinsky and Britney Spears, and the media seems to be a big part of that change. (Although things have turned out to be a bit of a hassle for Spears, who was the subject of five documentaries during the year.) Meanwhile, notable historical podcasts like You’re Wrong About and Not Past It adds to the popular “For Your Reconsideration” dialogue. But Diana looks like a strange person to be included in this wave. His story has long been well-written and, unlike Spears and Lewinsky, he was not deeply despised by the general public.

The stories we tell about Diana say more about us than they do about her.

While Larrain’s respect for his subjects is evident, it is shocking how the audience is eager to read the stories told of vulnerable, isolated, and disadvantaged women. According to reporters who knew Diana personally, Diana would not only be “shocked” by her portrait, but it would also be unfortunate for her sons, William and Harry, who often criticize the media for abusing and selling their news.

In the first episode of The Me You Can’t See, a series of mental health essays produced by Prince Harry and Oprah Winfrey, the prince talks about the death of his mother at the age of 12 while having to deal with social ills. “It was as if I were walking away from my body, doing what was expected of me. It reflects one-tenth of the emotion that everyone felt. I thought This is my mother. You have never met him. ” Oprah then suggested that those who had served Diana farther away were able to process her death better than Harry, and she admits: “Without question.” The ability of young officials to mourn Diana was hampered by the public’s sense of belonging when she died, but that privilege still seems to have been extended.

No matter how the princess used the media herself, the media caused her great distress. “Sadly, most of my memories are centered on trying to please her,” said Prince William in Diana, 7 Days – the 2017 documentary he and his brother sent.

Earlier this year, revelations emerged about the BBC’s famous interview with Diana and Martin Bashir; Bashir had forged documents suggesting that the princess was being sung, using the confusion that ensued to book an interview. Prince William blamed the interview for making his parents’ relationship worse (the Queen ordered their divorce after its broadcast) and for his mother’s mental health. “The failure of the BBC has had a profound effect on her fears, frustrations, and divisions that I remember in the last years I was with her,” the prince said in May. In a statement, Prince Harry said “the negative impact of abusive culture and bad habits eventually led to his death.”

The main theme of these films is that the royal institution is a prison. But the same can be said of the general public image. And despite our account of the role played by public sentiment in her death, this new account is still relevant to that need: to know more about the princess than to claim it. And in a distorted way, by engaging in this recent Diana story – giving them our money and attention and thus advancing the payment of her name – we seem to be dismissing any case we have for her death. The stories we tell about Diana say more about us than they do about her.

Even though she is called the most photographed woman in the world, there is one picture of Diana that is always a shadow. Her head is tilted as she holds the sunglasses on her thighs, her legs marked with a duchess slant. Her 5’10 ”frame looks small compared to the beautiful backdrop of the world-famous monument. Alone, her husband is gone. The papers were accompanied by a photo, claiming it showed the end of her marriage.

The public, who did not see it, however, between 30 and 40 photographers were crying out for the particular photo, asking him to sit down, in Taj mahal, insisting that he was the only one on the list (can be questioned even shouting). They wanted to isolate themselves. In fact, it had been known for weeks that Diana would be at the prestigious mausoleum terminal and Charles had committed himself to a Bangalore forum. With the scene set, the media knew what they were looking for – the idea of ​​romance was not going well. And because of the forced Diana, they got it.

But there was another, lesser-known image from that day, taken a few hours earlier at Agra Fort. Only one photographer bothered to appear at that tour stop. The Taj Mahal is behind Diana, this time far and wide. The princess smiles, chin up, and happy eyes. He is alone and seems to be in the middle of a laugh. The summary tells a different story – obviously not a broad one – but that, apart from the thousands of Diana projects that continue to be done, seems inexplicable.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/myblogguru/osjf

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.