Who has replaced Diana POW as most beloved royal - Queen of Europe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meghan had the warmth of Diana and probably would have won the hearts of many. A shame this wasn’t promoted by the BRF in charitable works across the globe.

Meghan is as phony as a three dollar bill. Diana with all her flaws was authentic

[Anonymous]

Michelle Obama has more name recognition and is involved in more charitable work than any of the royals in the initial post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's like 6 to choose from

https://twitter.com/CoutureRoyals/status/1368976242532290562

Those are all female heirs to the throne. That's a different category than Diana.

I would say that the most universally known and liked female, outside of their own country, would be Charlotte. Who is also a different category than Diana. A second choice might be Queen Rania.

[Anonymous]

Well, POW stands for prisoner of war, so I’d say nobody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's like 6 to choose from

https://twitter.com/CoutureRoyals/status/1368976242532290562

Those are all female heirs to the throne. That's a different category than Diana.

I would say that the most universally known and liked female, outside of their own country, would be Charlotte. Who is also a different category than Diana. A second choice might be Queen Rania.

No ideas who any of these are or what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michelle Obama has more name recognition and is involved in more charitable work than any of the royals in the initial post.

I’m from the US and other than exercise and plant your garden I have no idea what other charities she’s supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, POW stands for prisoner of war, so I’d say nobody.

Isn’t it Power Of Women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate is getting there but much of Diana's appeal was her victimhood/redemption narrative which hopefully won't happen on that scale again

No way. I don’t mind Kate but short of her being the POW she has none of Diana’s best qualities. No charisma whatsoever, doesn’t really seem to do much with her causes, and no fashion sense. But this is by design because she fits into the BRF much better than Diana did.

Let's not forget that she isn't a royal. Diana was. Kate is a commoner that much of Britain probably hates because she managed to land William despite not being worthy.

Diana was an aristocrat but still a commoner
She was not a royal until she married Prince
Charles!

An aristocrat is NOT a commoner. The Spencers had a ton of prestige. She was LADY Diana.

+1 Lady Diana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Kate has any desire to be the second Diana. Who would? Diana's life ended in disaster, she was deeply unhappy, emotionally unstable, hanging out with drug-addled playboys wholly unsuitable to be around the boys. We forget the last few years too easily.

Their personalities are so different. Kate is much stronger, much more confident in herself, prioritizes her family above herself, has a strong family network in her own family, shows little interest in events outside the UK, keeps herself utterly and completely apolitical. She is the beau ideal of what the queen consort should be. Which all work to her and the monarch's advantage especially as the UK is a different place today than it was when Diana was alive.

I am also confident both parents are keenly desirable of wanting to avoid the Harry outcome for their children and a great deal of Kate's public nature is actually tied to their desire their children have a certain kind of more grounded childhood.

Kate isn’t any stronger than Diana. She just has a family that cares about her. She has never really stood on her own two feet nor has she had to.

And how are they keen to avoid the Harry outcome? Harry’s messy personal life is just the new iteration of Princess Margaret’s. It’s not healthy for one sibling to be raised as superior to others by virtue of something arbitrary. William and Kate are not raising their kids any differently in that respect. They’re already setting up the youngest to be the scapegoat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Kate has any desire to be the second Diana. Who would? Diana's life ended in disaster, she was deeply unhappy, emotionally unstable, hanging out with drug-addled playboys wholly unsuitable to be around the boys. We forget the last few years too easily.

Their personalities are so different. Kate is much stronger, much more confident in herself, prioritizes her family above herself, has a strong family network in her own family, shows little interest in events outside the UK, keeps herself utterly and completely apolitical. She is the beau ideal of what the queen consort should be. Which all work to her and the monarch's advantage especially as the UK is a different place today than it was when Diana was alive.

I am also confident both parents are keenly desirable of wanting to avoid the Harry outcome for their children and a great deal of Kate's public nature is actually tied to their desire their children have a certain kind of more grounded childhood.

Kate isn’t any stronger than Diana. She just has a family that cares about her. She has never really stood on her own two feet nor has she had to.

And how are they keen to avoid the Harry outcome? Harry’s messy personal life is just the new iteration of Princess Margaret’s. It’s not healthy for one sibling to be raised as superior to others by virtue of something arbitrary. William and Kate are not raising their kids any differently in that respect. They’re already setting up the youngest to be the scapegoat.

+1. The tabloids ran with the stories of “naughty” Louis thumbing his nose at Kate. There is no real need for monarchy in modern times. No amount of careful parenting can fix the biggest mistake of arbitrarily elevating one child over the others while putting all of them out in public.

[Anonymous]

All of these shows fail to have LGTBQIA+ characters, particularly as lead characters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's like 6 to choose from

https://twitter.com/CoutureRoyals/status/1368976242532290562

Who are they? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diana wasn't that beloved when she died. She had her supporters but was a majority of royalist didn't like her or her relationship with dodi. She was calling tabloids almost daily and being a genuine nuance. Her death is what made people take closer look at her.

I cried when I heard she died. Went to the British Embassy to show my respects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diana wasn't that beloved when she died. She had her supporters but was a majority of royalist didn't like her or her relationship with dodi. She was calling tabloids almost daily and being a genuine nuance. Her death is what made people take closer look at her.

I cried when I heard she died. Went to the British Embassy to show my respects.

You don't show them, you give them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diana wasn't that beloved when she died. She had her supporters but was a majority of royalist didn't like her or her relationship with dodi. She was calling tabloids almost daily and being a genuine nuance. Her death is what made people take closer look at her.

Disagree. She was the most popular and beloved woman in the world at the time of her death. I am the same age as Diana and the endless news coverage of the immense oupouring of grief were indications of how much the public loved her. Anyone who lived in DC and is old enough to remember the display of flowers, stuffed animals, etc. in front of the British Embassy will tell you the same. It went on for blocks. We were all shell-shocked when she died.

Agree! I took my daughter who was 6 at that time. Everyone brought flowers and everyone was very respectful. It was a cultural moment. Anyone who says otherwise was simply not there.