People: Princess Diana was ‘the woman who changed everything’ for royals

diana people royals

Months ago, People Magazine introduced their new quarterly magazine, People Magazine Royals, solely for their more extensive royal coverage. I said at the time that it seemed like the quarterly magazine would focus more on sugary, positive royal stories and likely not get into the nitty-gritty of what’s actually happening in modern royalty, especially with the House of Windsor. The first quarterly issue had “Kate the Great” on the cover, looking like a Victorian doily. The second issue? “Princess Diana: The Woman Who Changed Everything.” They used a photo from Diana’s famous Mario Testino photoshoot, which was done just months before her death in 1997. She was so beautiful and free in those photos. Here’s the preview:

Princess Diana was just 19 years old when she became engaged to Prince Charles, 13 years her senior. The royal family found her to be the perfect bride for the future king: young, beautiful and malleable — or so they thought. Instead of staying “Shy Di,” Princess Diana’s empathy shined through, breaking stigmas by shaking hands with AIDS patients to kneeling down to speak with children during royal engagements. Princess Diana also forged her own path when it came to being a mother to Prince William and Prince Harry, from straying from tradition by giving birth in a hospital to bringing her young sons to homeless shelters.

Now, Prince Harry is following in his mother’s footsteps by doing things his own way. He and wife Meghan Markle relocated to California last year, continuing their humanitarian work outside the royal family through their Archewell Foundation. “I know I’ve got a lot of my mother in me,” Prince Harry told PEOPLE in 2016. “I am going to do a lot of things that she would probably do.”

“Contrary to popular belief, there is no etiquette rule or mandate that the royals must follow when it comes to showing public displays of affection — and they PDA they do show is simply a matter of personal preference,” says etiquette expert and founder of Beaumont Etiquette Myka Meier. “It’s important to remember that senior royals are considered ‘working royals,’ and while at work, they tend to practice professional behavior to show respect.”

[From People]

The outsized and hysterical reactions to Harry and Meghan over the past four years have made me understand just how groundbreaking Diana was in her day. At the time, we thought she was a modern woman stuck in an archaic institution. But looking back on it, holy sh-t was Diana really modern. I mean, all of those courtiers and palace aides and assorted Windsors had never seen anything like her. They couldn’t comprehend how the daughter of an aristocrat was so touchy-feely and such an egalitarian. She was intellectually curious, fascinating, emotional and real. They kept trying to destroy her because of that. Now we see it again with Harry and Meghan.

ZB7290_201707_24_132615_0001

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

76 Responses to “People: Princess Diana was ‘the woman who changed everything’ for royals”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MaryContrary says:

    What, exactly, did she change other than to make people world wide interested in the BRF? Because it seems like the institution is just as archaic and awful as it ever was. She was chased to her death by paparazzi-their power doesn’t seem to have waned. What a dumb headline.

    • Lowrider says:

      100% for this comment.

      Nothing changed. What’s disturbing and vile is how the royal and media institution harassed her till her death and have been profiting off her since.

    • Eleonor says:

      THIS.
      Nothing has changed, and Diana still terrifies the Firm to the point they are gaslightining her even in her grave.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      Yes, the headline is dumb. She didn’t change the RF at all. If anything, the firm became even more tone deaf and stubborn in her wake, refusing to believe the public reaction to somehow reflected on their behavior.

      Diana absolutely changed pubic perception about what a royal could be, though. Her empathy and ability to connect with people, and her willingness to use those skills to highlight issues important to her, provided a roadmap to how an irrelevant institution could become relevant.

      But she died, so the RF could just continue to stick their heads in the sand. They’re smart enough to hypocritically use the public’s affection for her over the years when it suits them (see Diana’s ring on Keen Guevara’s finger as an example), but they continue to firmly reject the actual lessons her existence should have taught them. Which was obvious when Harry and Meghan came along and, same as Diana, showed how their positions could be used to do real work. Just like Diana, they shined a light on how little the others in the family were doing and how irrelevant much of what the institution does is to most people.

      So much jealousy, still. Such deep rooted classism, still. So, so, so much racism exposed. And they’re still sticking their collective heads in the sand.

      Meanwhile, they become more and more irrelevant.

      • betsyh says:

        Yes, “they continue to firmly reject the actual lessons her existence should have taught them.” And they gaslighted her in the same way they did Harry and Meghan. So their playbook for smear campaigns hasn’t changed at all.

      • Lady D says:

        I just realized both Kate and Meghan have a blue ring from Diana. I wonder how Willie feels about that?

    • RIN JENN JENN says:

      Maybe I’m looking at it the wrong way, but I feel like she did change, not the institution itself, but the way we view it.

      She pulled back the veil of refinement and implied superiority, and revealed that they are a dysfunctional family, grasping at straws to stay relevant and wealthy, and headed by a woman who at her core is a petty, ill-informed, fart bag.

      • Southern Fried says:

        Absolutely she did!

      • bettyrose says:

        Plus, Diana’s influence on Harry is part of currently unfolding changes to the institution.

      • Carrie says:

        …and since Meghan’s arrival they have shown that they are so not the arbiters of social decorum they would have you believing they are. The manners they displayed at M&H wedding was quite disgusting. See also C&C in Canada openly laughing at Inuit throat singers.
        I associate the ‘family’ as mannerless, mediocre boors. Poorly educated but always wanting others to kowtow to them. How do they still get away with it in 2021?

    • Courtney B says:

      I don’t know really. Except make it more of a TV show for want of a better phrase. That’s not a criticism of her but she brought a glamour that hadn’t been seen in decades and the public was fascinated. She certainly did groundbreaking work in many regards but the media always forgets there are other royals. Anne was doing a lot of important work with Save the Children and was the first to give birth in a hospital. But Diana brought the charm and empathy and warmth that Anne could lack.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Courtney B, “Except make it more of a TV show for want of a better phrase.” Wow, that’s really not true. I’m a few years older than Diana, so I saw it all in real time. Princess Di was on more magazine covers than you could guess, because she was beautiful, compassionate and made herself very approachable. The causes she took on were not the pretty causes. She did more good for people with AIDS at that time then people who weren’t alive then could conceive. She didn’t just show up to smile and wave. She connected with people. And, it didn’t matter to her that they were commoners. In fact, that’s really who she wanted to help. Her marriage was a nightmare, and it doesn’t matter how Chuck wants to rewrite history because too many of us remember. So, to liken her life in the brf as a TV show is really insulting to her. Was she perfect? No. Was I then, as I am now, amazed at how she did what she needed to do for herself and her children when it meant going against the brf? Oh, yes. The reason the public forgets there are other royals? Well, what did they do to help her? Nothing. They became part of the negativity of the brf. And, they are happy with that. Just like they are now with H&M. She showed them another way. Can you imagine what the brf would be like today if they had followed her example?

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Saucy&Sassy, I am just a year younger than Princess Di and you are right!! Princess Diana made the efforts to create her own path and to take on issues that were extremely important around UK and the world. Diana humanized patients that were suffering from AIDS, when the general public was fearful of AIDS and those who were unfortunately sickened by it. Princess Di also tried to give her children a global upbringing that showed them that there are real people and struggles that are to be seen by those behind the gilded gates. Struggles for every day people were hard, from homelessness, wars, children paying the ultimate price for where they lived to exposing them to everyday people. Diana was a groundbreaker, not just for what she wore but what she did in her short life. She opened the doors and let fresh air into BP and they couldn’t handle it, the entire royal family, but mostly her jealous and petty husband.
        The Firm learned nothing for the tragedies that Princess Diana suffered from and she told us, no matter how flawed she was, that she wanted to make an impact. And she did.

      • Nic says:

        Yes @bothsidesnow – completely agree. It seems to me as though Harry and William are subconsciously re-enacting Diana and Charles’s marriage. How tragic that one of her sons cleaves to and defends the institution that led to her demise.

      • Christine says:

        I was alive when it happened, so I really remember how Diana changed me, much less what she did for her own children. Diana, and Elton John, if I’m going to be specific, wrote the script for how I, and GenX, viewed HIV and AIDS. Absent her children, if she had never had a child, I would remember her for this.

        She may not have changed Salty White Folk Isle, but she changed a lot of us, most importantly, she gave the world Harry, and now Meghan. It’s not all that complicated, she was ahead of her time, and now her son and his wife are following along. That is legitimately the greatest thing any of us could accomplish.

    • Jaded says:

      She didn’t change the BRF per se, but she shone a harsh spotlight on all it’s faults, useless protocols and biases. She also embraced people and issues that had been heretofore ignored by the BRF, i.e. AIDS, land mines, poverty, etc. The Firm and Family remained intransigent in their lack of reaction or inaction on these issues, but at least she made the public aware of them in a way entirely different from the royal “indifference”.

  2. The Hench says:

    The passage of time has shown her to be even more extraordinary than was realised whilst she was alive. Was she flawed? Yes but who isn’t? And knowing what we know now about the brutal, crazy, vicious way the Palaces can work behind the scenes, what she achieved is even more remarkable and her flaws more understandable.

    • equality says:

      That is why it bugs me that William, in his Bashir statement, leaned heavily on Diana being paranoid and didn’t give any weight to what she said or her accomplishments like Harry did. Phil’s mother had mental illness but accomplished much in her life. Harry has had struggles but has accomplished more than William who won’t admit to issues. Maybe in some ways having struggles yourself makes you more able and willing to see other people’s problems and thinking you are perfect just makes you more likely to be impatient with other’s lack of perfection.

      • Lorelei says:

        It’s also why Kate can never, ever be portrayed as anything less than 100% flawless 100% of the time. But it backfired, serving to make her utterly unrelatable

      • Elsavita Williams says:

        Willian talks with a forked tongue. He and his wife are only pissed off because H&M left now he and Waity Do-Little Katie have to do some”hard” work; from what I read H&M came up with ideas and Cain and Stepford wife would take credit for it. Below is a video about William’s work habits.

        https://youtu.be/OFqkX8p4xEg

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        The fact that William is leaning into Diana’s “paranoid” theory, like others, is very sad and dismissive to the person who willingly gave and showed him love during his Early Years. Said before, Harry said Diana was ‘unquestionable honest’-William called Diana “paranoid”. William is trapped in a system and Harry is free and sometimes has to slap back at the system that, with his own eyes & ears, damaged a lovely humang being or 2 or 3. The worst thing about the Bashir interview wasn’t the affairs or William’s anger (which is severely misplaced considering what Charles said the year prior), it IS Diana talking about courtiers and grey men running the show. It’s one of those known secrets that wasn’t supposed to be discussed like Diana & Harry have done. The Men Behind The Curtain.

  3. Dee says:

    The BRF and the royal rota chewed her up and spit her out. Nothing’s changed.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    Did Diana really change the royals? If this was true, Harry and Meghan would not have been treated the same way Diana was when she was in the Royal Family.

  5. Kitty says:

    I will say as a modern princess she is still the blueprint. She was essentially a humanitarian princess. I don’t think princesses and Queen’s today can even compare.

    • myjobistoprincess says:

      I believe that – so much that whenever somebody does something humanitarian – they will be compared to the one and only Diana – she is THE benchmark.

      • Kitty says:

        Not to say those who do it should be compared to her but because she was the first people follow. I mean none of the Royal ladies today seem to do anything different or impactful like Diana did. It’s why she’s still the most popular Princess even after her death.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      And, Harry’s wife, Meghan, has the same nature as his humanitarian, globally loved mother. Naturally. The courtiers and some members of the BRF, couldn’t handle that fact.

  6. Cecilia says:

    Im sorry but i can’t get over the cover: “remembering william & kate’s wedding” that anniversary been done and over with.

    As for Diana, she was an extraordinary woman, who (in my opinion), got taken advantage of by an institution that treats women as breeding horses.

    And said institution hasn’t changed a bit.

    • Becks1 says:

      I love how small that text is though about the wedding lol.

      • Cecilia says:

        I noticed that too!😂

      • MsIam says:

        The Keens had a huge special edition cover that’s still on the stands now. I guess even People can figure out when enough is enough. Anyway, I’d rather see a beautiful picture of Diana than that one of Kate wearing that doily dress and matching hat.

      • SwirlmamaD says:

        Especially because the tagline about Meghan is bigger, and ties in with the main subject of Diana. 😆

  7. Becks1 says:

    Hmmmm. Diana did not change the monarchy, but I do think she changed how people view the monarchy – and not necessarily in a good way. She highlighted the good the royal family can do with her work, but she also pulled back the curtain a bit on the messiness and toxicity. Harry is finishing the job for her, ha.

    I think maybe people thought the Firm had changed (remember what a fuss was made over William being “allowed” to marry a commoner?) but the treatment of Meghan shows you that nothing has changed.

    • Cecilia says:

      I wonder if courtiers are actually happy that william married a commoner? I mean, William dated kate for 10 years before they got married so im assuming she defo wasn’t a stranger. Still, i can’t help but wonder if they were secretly disgusted.

      • Snuffles says:

        Well, if all the gossip is to be believed, no aristocratic woman wanted to marry him. Now was that because they know the real him? Or they know what it’s really like to marry into that institution and wanted nothing of it? A combination of both?

        I believe he married Kate because she latched onto him and wouldn’t let go as he exhausted all other options.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Cecilia:Given that she’s still not accepted by the aristos, I’d say the courtiers probably look down on her but she’s the wife of the heir so they can’t be blatantly antagonistic and disrespectful as they were to Meghan. They have to keep William happy and committed to cause so they swallow any snobbishness they have towards Kate.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        I don’t know if they were disgusted, but they were resigned to it once it became obvious no aristo wanted any part of Elegant Bill. It was obvious the family/firm wasn’t enthusiastic about the relationship over the years (and the whole ‘make sure she can handle this life’ was pretty obviously code for ‘are you sure there isn’t someone in our class you’d rather be with’?)

        Or maybe some were disgusted. They are such incredible snobs.

        One thing, I’ll bet almost anything that several courtiers thought “well, it could have been worse,” about Keen Guevara when Harry became engaged to Meghan. Because that’s what matters to them. Keen G might be lazy and dim and middle class, but at least she’s white and a Brit! Such an effed up mentality.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Becks ita with every word of this

      On a totally superficial note, my god that is such a stunning photo of her. Every picture from that Testino shoot is gorgeous, but this one might be my favorite. Just beautiful

  8. Adream says:

    Diana changed SO many things! She changed how American media covered British royalty, both in regular journalism and then in tabloids. Instead of token work with people she initiated actual projects and long term organisational affiliations. She brought financial support and a global scope to major issues that other royals wouldn’t even fathom. She put her children and the future king into regular school. She changed fashion trends in the 80s, got a hugely public divorce and had lovers, making her more relevant to women than the queen or other princesses. If you didnt grow up in this era it would be hard to understand how much this woman broke down royal and feminist barriers.

    • Becks1 says:

      But most of those things that she changed are outside of the institution. The institution itself changed very little. and in his limited defense, Charles had started some actual projects before getting married.

      I do think she changed some things about how royal children are raised, but most of everything else you said is outside – journalism, tabloids, fashion trends, etc. There were some small changes in the institution but I think we have seen that the Firm is still very much the Firm.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks agreed— she did change things, but not the actual Firm itself or the way it operates. She was instrumental in destigmatizing AIDS at a time when AIDS patients were treated as lepers, and many people were completely unaware of the landmine issue until she brought attention to it.

        But as you said, the way they treated Meghan shows that she didn’t change a thing about their own behavior. Which is INCREDIBLE, since their handling of her death was such a crisis for them. I would have thought that the response to Diana’s death would have been a catalyst for a whole lot of reflection on their part, but no.

        You’d think that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be super aware of never wanting to repeat any aspect of the way they treated Diana with anyone else ever again, but clearly they learned absolutely nothing.

      • Jais says:

        Idk why but lately, with all the baby name hate campaign, I keep thinking about John Oliver’s comments before the wedding. That he was afraid the family would cause her emotional complications and that the family and institution prided itself on the fact that it never changes, which is actually very problematic. Like y’all are saying, the monarchy did not change after Diana and Meghan is evidence of that.
        Sidenote: would’ve been slightly too young to read but wish there was a CB around then and we could go back and read articles and comments from the Diana era. Can you imagine???

      • Brielle says:

        The firm is always hiring the same type of ppl: middle aged white men with classism views…if they don’t hire more women or minorities,how can that give them another perspective,motivate them to change? A poll recently showed that British Gen Z and millennials seemed more connected to Meghan than Kate( who is a perfect stepford wife) despite all the smears campaign

  9. Sofia says:

    Yeah I agree the royals haven’t changed at all. Now Diana does haunt them in some ways even after 25 years of death but the institution and the way it treats married ins (especially women) haven’t changed

    • Robin says:

      I know. The British govt pratically had to drag the Queen to address the public when she died. I don’t think she knew what to do or understood the magnitude of Diana’s appeal. Certain levels of the BRF must wish Diana never “happened” and they could sweep the concept of the royal family as accessible and human under the carpet. “Diana” is probably a banned word amongst parts of that family.

    • Truthiness says:

      Sofia, yes. The royals have not changed. For all of Kate’s attempted Diana cosplay, she is the antithesis of Diana. She has stayed completely silent about her husbands affairs for starters. And for that she was awarded a Royal Family ribbon from the Queen! Royals do not visit the sick or wounded. No hugging of AIDS/cancer sufferers, no walking with anti-mine gear on to highlight the deaths/risks to ordinary people. It’s slightly ground-breaking that Andrew addressed the press once about his deeds with Jeffrey Epstein but he is being protected and lives on as a free man.

  10. Eurydice says:

    Well, maybe Diana changed the public’s expectations of what a royal could and should do? It seems as if people expect more empathy. That doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.

    And I don’t know about the smaller headline, either – about how she set the path for William and Harry. William’s path was already set and he doesn’t seem to have absorbed anything about philanthropy and empathy. Harry got the empathy, but his path was set by how Diana was treated by the RF and the media.

  11. Dottie says:

    Perhaps Diana didn’t change anything. But I’d like to give her credit for opening the door & forcing (however slight) the BRF into doing things a bit differently. Sadly, I believe that only started at Diana’s funeral where the queen had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging the importance of Diana’s death & how her subjects responded to it. I believe Chuckie was then forced to be a more involved father to those boys. Harry appears to be the son who was more adversely impacted by the loss of his mum. The drinking, drugs, partying, that awful photo in a Nazi symbol…all a cry for help. I am proud that the military straightened him out & made him the man he is today. People complain that Meghan is controlling him. I think the man wanted the freedom that was denied to his mother. Here in America, he can have that. I may not agree with all that couple does but I am happy to see Harry spread his wings.

    • Snuffles says:

      Just to be clear, by all accounts, William went off the rails as much as Harry did, but The Firm got the press to not write about his shenanigans by offering up Harry’s instead. Harry has always been their scapegoat.

      • equality says:

        William was still partying as late as 2017 when he ditched the Commonwealth Service and Kate to go on a trip with his friends. That’s one that actually got reported. I guess, it was hard to not mention when he skipped an important event.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        @equality: And I think there was *still* an attempt to use Harry as William’s shield for that embarrassment. Didn’t some of the press claim that it was Harry partying in Switzerland until the pictures and video came out?

      • equality says:

        @Beach Dreams You must be thinking of another time. Harry was at the Commonwealth Service that year or I’m sure they would have tried laying the blame on him.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      I’m always curious when people say things like: “I may not agree with all that couple does…” and then go on to create a scenario where things could be done differently, not knowing the realities that faced the couple at the time of decision. I mean, whats there to disagree with? We dont know the hard cold facts of whats happening on the ground.

      Granted, H himself said back in Jan 2020: “We may not always get it right…….”
      Yes, nobody’s perfect and we all make mistakes because we’re all human. But thats not what I’m talking about.

      When onlookers like ourselves, with the little that we know of what a shitshow it really is behind the scenes of that phony institution, see how theyve navigated what we now know has been a sustained, 5-year, cold, calculated, smear campaign against them by “powerful forces,” which one of you who “may not agree with all that the couple does” could hv done anything better than what theyve done in the 5 years that theyve been together?

      This is the reason why I will never utter one word of criticism against H&M. Not a word. Not because I think theyre perfect, but because i know that with the odds theyve worked against, I have nothing but admiration, even awe for what we see of how theyve managed their life to date.

      • Kristinr says:

        I can’t speak for anyone else, but sometimes I couch my message with language like “I may not always agree with so-and-so” simply to clarify that I’m being an objective observer and NOT a super-fan or sycophant. Not sure if that’s the case here, but I definitely do that sometimes!:)

    • Tessa says:

      William was no saint. He had many a photo taken of him stumbling out of nightclubs. He was protected by the media and did not publish the more embarrassing photos of him looking worse for wear. Charles had to apologize for him when he trespassed on a neighbor’s estate speeding along on the property. He had a politically incorrect party celebrating the days of Colonial Africa. And he started Club H. Sometimes the less sympathetic media caught him out. Diana’s sisters had a reception honoring the book about her charity work. Harry was out of the country, William declined with “previous engagement.” Some photographers caught him stumbling out of a nearby club a few blocks from the reception.

  12. Lala11_7 says:

    I think what Diana did was give the public an inside window to how insidious The Firm is and THAT changed the way millions view British Royalty…my Mama was a Anglophile…heck I grew up with a picture of QE’s Coronation on our living room wall…but my Mama was OVER it when she saw how Charles et al treated Diana during AND after the marriage…she also left Harry a blueprint and the knowledge to get TF out…so yes…I believe Diana changed the Royals…in pointing out that they ain’t s–t.

  13. Catherine says:

    She didn’t change the family but I believe that she gave them a new lease open life. A lot of people extended their love and interest in Diana to the rest of the family. They resented her popularity but benefited from it. And that had extended to her sons. William is referred to as Diana’s son more that he is referred to as second in line to the throne. The RR’s and Cambridge fans lean into that FFK narrative but as demonstrated by William’s near invisibility at the G7. Being the FFK doesn’t carry much weight. The BRF is continuing to profit from Diana’s popularity. Look at the her wedding dress being put on display. They need money for the palaces upkeep they role out Diana.

  14. Val says:

    Hmm, she changed everything and yet nothing at all. If anything, her time in the RF cemented their archaic and rigid mindset.

    • Becks1 says:

      This is actually a perfect way to put it.

    • Catherine says:

      Her death allowed them cling to their archaic ways. That’s something that just disgust me to this day. They benefitted from her death. She would have completely eclipsed the BRF had she lived and been able to work and established herself as a global philanthropist. Her death saved them from that. That is why they are so afraid of the Sussexes and are trying to destroy them. Their global popularity because of their work is going to highlight just how archaic the BRF still is. All that talk about changing after Diana’s death was just talk.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Val omfg you just completely summed it all up perfectly in one sentence

  15. questions says:

    She was extremely famous beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. And still is. That’s pretty much how I think of her. That level of fame is highly unusual. She keeps selling magazines — otherwise, I don’t think she’d still keep landing covers as a dead woman. I think she’s surpassed other icons in terms of level of fame. That’s interesting to me. And I think she changed the perception of certain social issues, but I thing actual changes within the royal family, in terms of hierarchy and gender, happen very slowly, if at all. I don’t think one person can change that and I’m not even sure if people of that class or within those circles would want to.

  16. K says:

    Maybe she didn’t change them, but she changed US. Sometimes when you look at a monster it looks back at you. I think in this case Diana showed us all there was a monster in the first place.

  17. Brielle says:

    You can’t be an egalitarian and believe in monarchy and Diana still believed in the monarchy and wanted to retain her titles…She was certainly an extraordinary woman but not an egalitarian

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Brielle, I don’t remember that she ever said that the monarchy should end. Her son is a future King and she was raised in aristocratic circles, so I don’t know where that came from. Did she care about people? Yes. Did she believe you could care about people and wanting to help them and still be part of a monarchy? Yes. So …?

      • Brielle says:

        @Saucy I only responded to Kaiser who said ‘’ a daughter of an aristocrat was such an egalitarian and touchy-feely’’ and I don’t think that she was an egalitarian:she cared about ppl but she wasn’t against the monarchy…and you can’t be an egalitarian if you believe in a class system where ppl with titles are seen ‘’better’’ than other regular ppl

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Brielle, my bad. I missed that. I agree with you. I think the best I can describe it is that she built a bridge between the two.

  18. Lizzie says:

    Diana brought world wide attention to the brf, which they still have. If not for her I would probably know of the queen and prince Charles but no one else in the family. Before Diana the royals did not want to meet people. They would walk my with a nod or that stiff arm wave. Maybe the queen was considered glamorous in you younger years but that was missing for decades before Diana. She had her children in a hospital and sent them to school.
    I doubt there would be very few blogs devoted to the brf if she had never come along.

  19. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    I think the picture of her on that cover is stunning. She looks beautiful. She looks happy and there is a light in her eyes that wasn’t there for so long.
    Sure she had issues and problems (who doesn’t?) but in the long run she seemed to FINALLY be comfortable in her own skin and realized her worth as her own person, not as a tool of the RF
    William got her looks (even tho age hasn’t been kind to him) but Harry got the best of his Mom and I think she would have have backed him and Meghan all the way. She would probably have been a most excellent grandmother. It would have been interesting to see her and Doria together with H&M’s kiddos.
    I think she would have loved Cambridge kids as well, but maybe her relationship with W&K wouldn’t have been so great?

  20. Lala11_7 says:

    She looks SO MUCH like Helen Hunt in that picture ❣

  21. candy says:

    Let’s face it, she was beautiful. She had the body of a model and an angelic face. Until her, there really wasn’t anyone “royal” that attracted media interest in the same way. I think this contributed to the culture of fame around her. She was mistreated by her in-laws and it didn’t seem like she had anyone to turn to. Her family was equally cold, aristocratic. She had no choice but look outside, and they punished her for it.

  22. Dee says:

    I’ll say she captured our attention, in the same way Princess Grace of Monaco did. Also gone too soon.

  23. Curious says:

    I watched animal planet some time ago .they was filming birds.i saw the mother birds fetching food for her bird babies,they was high up on a tree in their nest .. there was water next to the tree where the birds nest was at . in that water was danger,crocodiles waiting to eat them if they fell out that tree.. so they had to know the right time to try to fly out of that nest.if they succeed they fly zooming in the sky ,if they fail they will be eaten.. i compared this to Diana, when she flew she flew high above and at the same time,though her life was short lived, she manage to expose the evil lurking in the palace that was once her home…

  24. Nic says:

    It seems to me that Harry and William are re-enacting Diana and Charles’s marriage. So that is one legacy – two sons with completely different approaches to navigating life in the public eye.

    Beyond that, Diana may not have changed the Firm or the BRF, but her acts of compassion did carry a great deal of influence. Before Diana, no one held dying aids patients – it was so stigmatized and people were so afraid of AIDS they shied away from it completely. I remember watching the news coverage of her visit to the bedside of a dying man and when she took his hand and spoke directly to him, it was shocking. No one had done that before her, and it was the first step to transforming how the world saw the disease and its victims.

    As a result of the photo of her navigating a landmine, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention was signed in 1997 shortly after her death and after years of effort by activists. Her many seemingly small actions magnified on the world stage carried enormous weight in altering the course of events.

  25. J ferber says:

    It’s so sad for me to look at her picture. I now believe Charles’ “plausible” story of why SHE rejected MI 6 security (they spied on her for Charles) is pure horseshit. I think he cut her security EXACTLY as he cut Harry’s security: secretly and then denying it afterward. Poor Diana never got to deny Charles’ story, because she died as he was hoping she would. I don’t see how Harry can EVER have a relationship with his Putin-like father. Shady bastard.