Recently, I’ve had several arguments about Lady/Princess Diana. This is mostly because I am writing a story set in 1997 in which a politician gets in trouble with the media for stating that the excessive mourning for Diana is indecent and over the top, and ultimately, she was just an over-entitled posh woman whose work did not touch the lives of ordinary working-class people. The character asserts that the press is making her into some kind of goddess when before her death, they were the very people criticising her. She is calling out the hypocrisy.
I would argue the same, sure Royals, as part of the job and to justify their existence, undertake charity work. It makes them look good and for minor royals, it keeps the taxman off their backs. This is the same for celebrities: they all have their pet causes.
Arguments about Diana go like this: I ask why someone worships her because she hasn’t done anything for us personally, not least because she died when I was 11, but because we are poor people and Diana didn’t do anything for impoverished people in my town.
The person will argue that “she did do stuff for us”. I ask what. “She brought attention to landmines and AIDS”. Well, actually, AIDS was known before Diana met AIDS patients and how does highlighting landmines benefit us, poor working-class English people? How did Diana going to African countries affect your ordinary life? Personally, I think it was a publicity stunt for her, but that’s by the by.
In response, I will assert she was a pointless celebrity before the age of reality TV. Famous for being glamorous, famous for being married to a prince, famous because the media forced her upon us by hounding her as they do. I also think she courted publicity on top of being hounded. I like to be nuanced on these things. It is possible to undertake humanitarian work without fanfare, like Princess Anne, I tell them.
I say there’s no good reason for her to be celebrated so, even considering her charity work. Lots of dead celebrities gave to charity. Some, unlike Diana, even left money to charity in their wills.
At this point, the arguer will tell me that my being a fan of dead musicians is the same as idolising Diana. I say it’s different. A musician gives you a gift - their talent. I don’t really understand the science of music, but music causes some kind of chemical reaction in the brain that has the power to temporarily alter our emotions. It can make us cry, make us euphoric, calm us, inspire us. When the musician dies, it is painful, because their talent is extinguished and we will no longer receive their particular gift. Sure, there is other music, but when someone’s voice and tunes have been the soundtrack to pivotal moments in our lives, it does sting a little.
I argue that music is more important than the celebrated musicians who created it. An artist’s catalogue can be accessed by other generations, new fans arrive all the time, the celebrity may be dead, but they will continue to bring joy decades later; that is their legacy. What did Diana leave for ordinary people that can be accessed as a pick-me-up? What did she leave that can alter your mood in a positive way? Do you feel entertained by footage of her in the same way you would from watching your favourite films from a deceased actor? Can she be played at a party to get everyone jumping about with joy?
They will tell me that the musician is not giving us their music as a gift, but is simply selfish, that their songs are mostly about their lives and experiences so liking the songs is no different from worshipping pointless celebrities like Princess Diana. Again, I argue against this: lyrics may well be about the musician’s life, but they can be relatable. Some lyrics are ambiguous so you can interpret them how you want. To quote Freddie Mercury, “if you see it, darling, then it’s there”. Finding inspiration in lyrics is not the same as idolising a princess whose actions have not brought you PERSONAL HAPPINESS. Is Diana the millionaire aristocrat more relatable to you than lyrics from a person who, before fame was once as ordinary as you?
Does a rich woman globe-trotting in glittering dresses speak to you more than music? If so, ask yourself why.
My mother told me “it’s comforting, like religion.” So is that admittance of deifying a celebrity? Why do you need to believe she brought you personal joy because it “makes you feel better”? Why aren’t you asking yourself why trivial celebrities who left absolutely no physical legacy accessible to YOU, in particular, brings you comfort?
The next reply was “But the press made her into that celebrity”. So you just go along with it? You worship her because the papers tell you to, even though they indirectly led to her death. That was my original point - my character points out the absurdity of the press coverage. They stalk them, celebritise them, bring them down and then when they die, they raise them up higher than they ever did when they were alive.
Just because the media makes someone into a celebrity, doesn’t mean you have to celebrate them. Look at yourself.
More arguments flowed forth, to tell me why Diana stands out more than others. “She was nice, so nice people get celebrated when they die”. I’m sure they do, but did you know her? How did you know she was nice? She might have been a cow! You only know what the media tells you and you’re selective about that too, because you don’t believe anything you perceive to be negative about your idol.
“But she brought her kids up to be loved and normal”. So do other people. So do other celebrities. Other parents are killed and aren’t celebrated, but she is because she was once married to a royal and the media told you you must. It’s no different from obsessing over a reality TV star today.
Anyway, that’s my rant over. The character in my story says a lot more controversial stuff than that, so I suppose I’ll end up debating those views at some point too!