If Diana were alive today...

[Tinika]

...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.

[Miss Marple]

I think society is more open. During the 1990s people pretended to be at least conservative and interested and live by the rules and today it seems to be hip and trendy if you are different than other people. So I think she might not be critizised that much.

Then again history might have been different, Charles might have married Camilla straight away (because society is more open). Not sure.

[CathyJane]

I think society is more open. During the 1990s people pretended to be at least conservative and interested and live by the rules and today it seems to be hip and trendy if you are different than other people. So I think she might not be critizised that much.

Then again history might have been different, Charles might have married Camilla straight away (because society is more open). Not sure.

If C&C had married (and saved Diana's life) just think of whattheir kids would have looked like. 

[scworldtraveler]

it looks like the married one doesnt matter really- the royal genes run strong!

zara-anne
peter-? don't remember

will- weird combo now mostly chuck to me
harry-charles with red hair

beatrice- andy/victoria
eugenei- queen mum

louise AND james- well, if teddy eddie DIDNT father them, then hes got a good doppleganger!

[Cloaked]

If Diana had married Charles in 2010 then, likely, she would have been his second wife.
Charles would have already have had the heir and the spare with another 'lucky' lady.
Diana might not have had the glorious wardrobe that she wore in her twenties and thirties and I doubt that any of us would have recognised her face at all.  We would all have 'met' her at age fifty.
Diana would most likely have had two or three children with a man with wealth enough to afford their children a great childhood and a sound education.  She would have lived a life similar to her sisters'.

Then again, Diana could have decided to not wear her seat belt and could have been in a nasty car accident involving a truck collision on a country lane.  She might have survived but with horrific injuries.  

She also could have been alive today had she survived the car crash in Paris.  
Sadly it was not to be and her life ended up too short though dramatic and fantastic - with a mix of great fortune and also sadness and bad luck.



 

[scworldtraveler]

deleted

[Tinika]

Sorry--what I meant to say was, what if Diana had been 19 in 2010, and we had met her in this era of extreme public exposure and royal message boards? Would we be critical of her the way we are of Mary and Kate? (I tend to think/hope not, because Diana had more good qualities than Mary or Kate ever will, but then again, it's human nature to place people on pedestals and then knock them off...)

[Miss Marple]

Sorry--what I meant to say was, what if Diana had been 19 in 2010, and we had met her in this era of extreme public exposure and royal message boards? Would we be critical of her the way we are of Mary and Kate? (I tend to think/hope not, because Diana had more good qualities than Mary or Kate ever will, but then again, it's human nature to place people on pedestals and then knock them off...)

I am not sure if she'd be that popular. A lot of things might have been found out earlier (Hewit, etc. etc.). Diana got time to develop into the person she was - she married, got pregnant and found her personality ten years later.

[christina01]

I have often wondered how someone like Diana would be perceived by the public were she out there today. I don't honestly think she would be anywhere near as popular as she was for the time. She would be seen as a spendthrift like all the others, however I guess her work ethics would be seen as pretty good. It's an interesting question 

[Paddy1311]

I have often wondered how someone like Diana would be perceived by the public were she out there today. I don't honestly think she would be anywhere near as popular as she was for the time. She would be seen as a spendthrift like all the others, however I guess her work ethics would be seen as pretty good. It's an interesting question  

I agree, I don't think she would be all that popular today. Times have changed. People don't believe in fairytales so much. I think that ones of the reasons, that Kate isn't as popular and dosen't have the appeal that Diana had.

I also think, questions may have been raised about Diana's suitablity. Such as about her age, her lack of education. After all Diana was a high school drop out, who failed her O-levels. And the fact, that Diana marrying the heir was basically an arranged marriaged.

[Jonathan]

We would be a republic.

She was dense, self absorbed and basically selfish. An uncaring mother and dim witted to believe her own publicity.

[eagle]

Looking at Kate's "engagement diary", I would like Diana more today. Especially if Diana didn't have Kate's hair and vacuous personality.

[CathyJane]

We would be a republic.

She was dense, self absorbed and basically selfish. An uncaring mother and dim witted to believe her own publicity.

I'm sorry Jonathan but I have to disagree. Diana wasn't brilliant, but she wasn't ense imo. She couldn't have been to acomplish what she did. She was a very caring mother who loved her sons deeply. Maybe she was self absorbed, selfish and believed alot of her own publicity but who wouldn't with all that went on in her life.

[Columbo]

...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.

[bumbershoot]

I agree today that people would look askance at the heir to the throne's marrying a 19-year-old with a minimal education, and am sure her family background would have been given much more scrutiny. So no, this marriage would absolutely not have taken place.