A Modern Princess?

"People's princess." "Queen of hearts." "Saint Diana." After the Aug. 31 death of Diana, Princess of Wales, overblown eulogies such as these dominated the senses. The shift in public opinion (or, in any case, media coverage of the public's opinion) was reminiscent of that surrounding President John F. Kennedy '40 after his death: post-assassination, it is said, he gained thousands more voters than he had when he was alive.

Among the culprits which supporters of Princess Diana pointed to after her death was the British royal family. This target made for interesting criticism in light of the fact that Princess Diana would have been a non-entity without the British royal family, whose trust and popularity she had abused and usurped. It is true that Diana was a popular princess, beloved by democratic masses the world over. But why exactly was Diana so popular--and can we reconcile such popularity with the proper role of the royal?

Part of Diana's popularity lay in her representation of mediocrity--mediocrity put on a pedestal. Diana was a giggly high school dropout with no particular interests except for babies. Among the mediocre are many giggly high school dropouts who might relate to her. Diana's greatest excitement in life was meeting movie and rock stars: loving pop culture from the top down, just like the throngs who flock to movies and concerts would love to do. And when Diana's marriage failed, she spent a great deal of time talking about how ill-treated she was, just as so many plebians like to feel wronged in life. After all, playing the victim allows one to deny one's own failings.

In any case, most of Diana's popularity had nothing to do with anything that she did. Diana had rarity value: Great Britain had not had a Princess of Wales since Princess Mary of Teck married the future George V in 1893. Diana also had escapist value: Margaret Thatcher's early 1980s Britain was one of economic depression.

But in the decade or so after her marriage in 1981, she was mostly known as an immature clotheshorse with a difficult personality--she alienated not only the affections of Prince Charles, but of dozens of royal servants, who started a mass exodus after she arrived at Buckingham Palace. Her major accomplishment was to have two children--not much of an accomplishment considering that she was female.

Diana only became a so-called "social worker" after her marriage broke up, starting in the 1990s. Much of the reason for this change, it seems, came from her need for attention and revenge rather than for the particular cause or charity at hand. Today, one never hears that she manipulated the press in order to make herself look good at the expense of the royal family, and that she timed her appearances to coincide with and upstage important events hosted by the other royals.

One never hears that Prince Charles has worked for decades to improve the lot of inner-city children in Britain. One never hears that Diana's sister-in-law, Princess Anne, has always done at least twice as much social work as Princess Diana. Princess Anne worked without fuss, without claiming credit for herself and without complaint.

The crux of the matter is this: princess consorts, royal non-heirs such as Diana, are the weak archaic links in all royal families, which, except for Sweden, betray a marked preference for male succession. There is therefore a feminist dilemma regarding the behavior of modern princess consorts, not unlike the one that Hillary Clinton faced when her husband was running for president of this country. Essentially, the consort's role must be a supporting one, and always subordinate to both the monarch and the heir.

The princess consort merely marries the prince who will occupy the throne. As such, it is her duty, as the trade-off for great wealth and social prestige, to be discreet. She puts the interests of the royal family, and most certainly the prominence of her husband, before her own. Similarly, a princess is not to be praised for social work--it is to be expected of her. It is not for a princess to seek celebrity, but to lead a life of duty and sacrifice, which was not exactly what Diana did.

If one judges by the standards of duty and loyalty to country, there are more successful princesses than Diana in this world. If only the international media was not English-dominated, we in America would have had much better model female consorts to follow. Take, for instance, Princess Alexandra of Denmark. A Eurasian former economist, she works hard to improve Danish trade. Or Crown Princess Masako of Japan '85, who was able to adapt herself to a most private and ancient family without a murmur. Look at Queen Noor of Jordan. As an American woman, she had been one of the first co-eds at Princeton, studying architecture. She was an anti-Vietnam activist. Then, at 25 she married a king, inheriting eight stepchildren and later having four children of her own. She is now involved in everything from improving the lot of Jordanian women to protecting traditional architecture.

Diana, by dying early, will eternally be thought of by many as young and beautiful. While she will never see her sons marry, she will also not have to see another Princess of Wales take her place. Nor will she face the outrage people felt when Jacqueline Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis. And she will never be judged for her social and character failings. In addition, if Diana had lived, she would have had to face an increasing barrage of criticism, evident from the growing acceptance by the British public that her ex-husband, Prince Charles, would marry his mistress.

On Aug. 31, the "people's princess" had been finishing up her fourth luxury vacation in less than two months. This came after a year in which, among many other things, she also came under attack for meddling in politics, ordering an assault on a photographer and forcing the removal of her sons' beloved governess, who just happened to be her rival for their affection. And this "very British" princess was saying that she loved being abroad more than being in Britain. Diana has been called the lonely princess. But one must stop to wonder at the discrepancy between her popular image and the fact that all her life she could never seem to keep close friends or loyal servants--evidence against the model of humanity and care that princesses ought to have.

In the end, what was Princess Diana, really? Icon, yes. Model princess, never.

Nanaho Sawano, a senior in Dunster House, is an implacable royal-watcher. This commentary is the first in a series of three appearing on consecutive Mondays about royalty as a political institution.