An Eye Through the Keyhole

Revenge is supposed to be a dish best eaten cold. Unfortunately for England's royal family, Princess Diana doesn't seem to mind having a scalded--or scalding--tongue.

In her tell-all television interview that had the British as well as their Americans cousins waiting with bated breath this last week, Diana discussed private issues such as her bulimia, her infidelity, and her thoughts on what she once referred to as "this f--ing family." While this may have won her the support of the public, Diana's motives and methods reveal her to be hardly a victim of the system. Her public reception highlights a society where sympathy increasingly goes to squealers.

For someone who claimed she "never encouraged the media," we can only assume, then, that Diana was tricked into giving this blockbuster television interview, and must have been surprised to find herself in front of BBC reporter Martin Bashir, the guest star on what turned into "The Martin Bashir Show," with more than 21.5 million British citizens in the audience.

Even more of a turn-off than this utter irony in her method of dealing with the situation between herself and the royal family were her motives and the calculation behind them. Referring to friends of Prince Charles as "the enemy," Diana appeared to be in the midst of some sort of military campaign in which the key was, in her own words, to "always confuse the enemy." For someone trying to start a war within her family and already spouting her attack strategy, she hardly seems the victim that 72 percent of the British in a recent MORI poll decided she was.

Perhaps it seems like she is always the victim because she so often refuses to take action. According to this week's Newsweek, Diana was careful in 1992 to make sure that it was the Prince and not herself to move for a separation. She does the same again in her interview, refusing, despite all that she reveals, to ask for a divorce and strategically placing the burden of action in Charles' hands. Whatever he does, she can again appear acted upon, and again play the victim.

And what of her motives? She claimed she see did not see herself as queen, but would like to be "queen of people's hearts." What does that mean? A Miss England title? Since when does a woman who always cried out for more privacy start looking to win the media popularity contest? How noble is a quest for public support of her personal position over the consideration of any of the other parties involved, particularly since they are her children's family?

In her interview, she states "I'II fight to the end because ...I have two children to bring up," but she does not seem to give a thought as to what will be left to them "in the end," after her attack on the monarchy. Does she mind leaving Prince William an open invitation onto Geraldo rather than a cohesive family that can work things out on their own?

Of course, Britain's First Family has many significant problems that have nothing to do with Diana, and it is hardly her sole responsibility to solve them. Moreover, her hopes to modernize the image of the royal family are both admirable and almost inevitable. Clearly there are old traditions that have contributed to the dysfunctions evident in the system today.

Still, Diana should be more careful as to what type of modernization she is striving for. A monarchy that airs its dirty laundry in front of the media, taking sides and constantly battling for the approval of the public, is not quite progress in the right direction, nor is it one of the aspects of our modern culture that is most enviable. Blind rebellion to values such as discretion, while certainly something new, does not automatically become something good.

Beyond the interview itself, there is the whole question of the public's over-whelming sympathy towards her. Seventy-two percent of the population makes for a powerful support group, and one wonders at the advantages of "telling all" in this day and age. What ever Diana had to say, the public would have been drawn to her the way the FBI takes to informants. Regardless of the part she played, at least she was telling them what they wanted to know when no one else would. Before opening her mouth, the Princess had this advantage over anyone else.

In addition, there is the notion that this type of public revelation is always the hardest to make, and that Diana made a gutsy decision. To this, one has to respond that Diana did not reveal anything that most people did not already know. We were aware of her bulimia, of her infidelity and of the difficulties of her former life. What Diana accomplished, in essence, was offering the public the first willing player with whom to identify, someone open to any sympathy and who, in her admitted bid for popular support, was, in fact, garnering it as a political tool.

She was the first to really let the British people in, not in an almost involuntary way, as with Charles' own interview several years ago, but with open arms. The public has time and again shown itself to appreciate this kind of "telling all," with Diana's case being no exception. Indeed, this was a fact on which Diana was surely banking.

Diana's interview appears to have served its purpose in giving her the upper hand with the public. One has to believe that she knew the advantage she would gain in serving as the keyhole that society so wanted into the Royal Palace, and that its appreciation and sympathy would be forthcoming.

Not a bad place for a victim to find herself.