Posted by: madamm | April 30, 2007

The Manipulative Hyena

Ruthless. Vain. Neurotic.

I’ll give you three two guesses. It’s not Paris Hilton. Suprisingly it’s not Bob Mugabe either (though, that would be kind of me). The problem with those two is that they’re still around enough to incite headlines of both awe and fury. But the media remembers dead people too. Years after their departure from life as we know it. The above  is indeed the description by (reportedly) one of her very best friends in a Sunday newspaper of the ‘peoples’ Princess Diana.

In a book written by one Tina Brown (previously an editor of Vanity Fair, no doubt) she puts it that Diana was not only greedy and vain, but that she only married Charles for social status, etc. Now, along with the rest of them, I too, sat and watched in shock as news spread that she had died so violently in a car crash in 1997. I watched the tapes of her and Dodi Al Fayed leaving some place (I forget) in
Paris, captured as their last moments alive. I too felt like someone I knew was gone forever. And books have been written, stories have been told. Diana’s last dance. Diana’s pain. Diana’s sorrow. Charles’ unashamed revelations of infidelity…and so it went. Until now (well, as far as  my memory is concerned anyway). Here’s someone who thinks they’ve got it. Here’s someone with a different story ( I have not read the book, or any other books about Diana’s life) but The Diana Chronicles ( due  for release on my, my mother-in-law and Diana’s own son William’s birthday this year) is probably going to put a whole new spin on things. Rowan Philip describes the book as “rewriting the Diana myth”.

What myth was that? That she was sad and lonely on all those
Aspen ski trips? Or that she slept alone while Charles apparently expressed wishes that he could be Camilla’s tampon? That she had a humanitarian side to her (that definitely did not go unnoticed) is for certain. And that, along with all the ambassador work Angelina Jolie is doing now, should never fall to the wayside. But the “neurotic” side (Diana, not Angelina)…it intrigues me. With the dream of marrying the prince of Wales (for catapulting her into the limelight) she was able to do all of those things, as a member of the bluebloods. Then, when things finally fell apart, she had scores of men waiting to fill that gaping hole of emptiness Charles had never been able to fill. A manipulative hyena, says Rowan. What do you know?

I have no vendetta against the royal family. There can be no doing away with one of the world’s first ideas and glimpses of Celebville as we know it today. I hardly ever read a news story about them and I couldn’t tell you if Andrew was/is Anne’s late husband or son. But Diana. Yes Diana. I simply have one question. One, only because it is the only thing I’ve ever wondered about since before her death. I once saw a photograph of her (boyfriend/lover) James Hewitt in the early nineties. I saw it only once and I’ve seen a gazillion photo’s of Harry since. Diana, they portray you as a victim of your circumstances.
England’s rose, Diana. But can you answer that question for me, please? Will the rewriting of your ‘myth’ answer it for me? Somehow I doubt it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: