...and by this I don't mean alive and middle-aged and about to become the grandmother of the next heir, but...
I've been wondering, and forgive me if this has been discussed here before, but:
If 19-year-old Diana became engaged to the heir, married him, and proceeded to have the career of dazzling gowns and weight fluctuations and private struggle that we all know she did, would we be as critical of her as we are of the other crown princesses? I'm one for acerbic observations myself, so I'm not criticising the criticism
, but I just wonder what we might say on this board about Diana if her trajectory had begun in 2010 instead of 1980.
I think I know what you're getting at, Tinika. The press and general public has become far more critical and even hostile, sometimes directly, but often in a very insidious fashion, in our 21st century Internet age.
Imagine if a 30-year-old Harry suddenly announced to the world that he had become engaged to a 19-year-old aristo girl who hadn't attended college and worked in a nursery school.
In 2013, public reaction would probably be:
She's only 19 YEARS OLD!!! WAY too young to get married!!
She didn't go to college!! What a bimbo!!
She works in a nursery!! What kind of unambitious job is that?? Doesn't she want a high-powered career??
What is wrong with this girl?? (And, secretly, of course, everyone would be asking, how did she get so lucky??)
These are not my personal opinions. I see nothing wrong with getting married at 20 or not attending college, and working in a nursery is not easy! When I got married at 22 a couple of years ago, many people really questioned why I was marrying "so young", and I already had a college degree and a good job to boot.
Poor Diana wouldn't stand a chance in 2013 in the eyes of the media.