She is the first high profile person (nothing higher than royal family) photographed touching AIDS patients and also in areas with land mines. Think about it-these things weren't done.

Was she a personal mess-yes, but does the good by far outweigh the bad-of course.

She was the "people's princess" because people could relate to her. She wasn't aloof like other royal members - she actually engage with the people and related to them.

She was pretty, well dressed, lived a fairy tale, had empathy, had psychological issues, and her life ended tragically. Let's face it, if she looked like Camilla or Sarah Ferguson people would not have been as interested in her.

She was pretty and photogenic and so was the focus of many photo ops and feel good stories.

It created an image of how people saw her. She was more available to the public through photos and photo ops than most royals so people felt closer to her.

She was less formal than the royal family and so more relatable as a mother and wife

She had that rare, IT quality. When I look at pictures of her, my eyes just automatically go to her. Even in those dated photos, she just shines in the pictures and everyone with her just comes across as normal.

Pretty much this. What she did then in terms of tipping of photographers and feeding blurbs to the media is standard behavior for a celeb/public figure. They who employ teams to force feed the public the notion that they are the epitome of beauty and style whatnot. IMO very few people truly have IT. Diana did. There was something about her. I don't think her in laws understood it at the time. They were and may still be stuck in a time when they are supposed to be adored and revered just because. Nope.

Everything said above, plus her traits that made her human. Many sources close to her admitted she was manipulative, for example, that she herself would tip off the paps as to where she'd be and then moan about being harassed and followed.

That girl was not an innocent victim of fame (I'm not talking about the events the night she died, by the way.) She had a sad, weird upbringing and the affection and attention the world lavished on her - good and bad - was what she wanted.

I am a big fan of hers and still can't believe she's gone.

I agree with all the points everyone mentioned but you can't dismiss the facts that she was incredibly photogenic and charismatic. She had that rare, IT quality. When I look at pictures of her, my eyes just automatically go to her. Even in those dated photos, she just shines in the pictures and everyone with her just comes across as normal.

Anonymous wrote:

She used that attention for causes she cared about - AIDS patients, world poverty, land mines.

This is what was so great about Princess Diana.

She was unique bc she actually did something "useful" as a royal...like helping others, charities' fundraisers, etc. She did more than any other royal did in generations. One if the reasons she was so highly favored by the public.
Plus, Charles always had an eye for Camila so the public felt bad for Diana in that regard too.
See how the points are adding up in her favor? I could go on about her apoeal, down to earth (she came across as so relatable esp when William and Harry were born), she had a pretty face, etc.

She used that attention for causes she cared about - AIDS patients, world poverty, land mines.

This is what was so great about Princess Diana.

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't understand about Diana was that she was an aristocrat and knew it was common for royals to have extramarital affairs. What Charles was doing was routine yet she acted like it was the biggest betrayer ever! Why couldn't she just suck it up and go on with her duties?

Because of her parents' terrible divorce. There was cheating on both sides and it deeply scarred her. Diana bought into the fairytale as much as anyone. You know, she was only 18 when she started courting Charles, and 19 when she married. Teenagers are dramatic and she saw this as a huge betrayal. Understandable, really.

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't understand about Diana was that she was an aristocrat and knew it was common for royals to have extramarital affairs. What Charles was doing was routine yet she acted like it was the biggest betrayer ever! Why couldn't she just suck it up and go on with her duties?

She was a twenty year old girl who naively believed he loved her. More power to her for not just taking it.

The thing I don't understand about Diana was that she was an aristocrat and knew it was common for royals to have extramarital affairs. What Charles was doing was routine yet she acted like it was the biggest betrayer ever! Why couldn't she just suck it up and go on with her duties?

Some of us remember waking up early in the morning to watch her fairytale wedding. It was a worldwide event - wedding of the century. Everything she did loomed very large in the media, from having her children to her seperation and divorce. She used that attention for causes she cared about - AIDS patients, world poverty, land mines. She died just as it seemed she was truly coming into her own. Her death was tragic. I stayed up all night to watch her funeral. It was so sad, and such a bookend after having done the same for her wedding. Perhaps you're too young to have known or cared, but for many of us, her life meant a lot and her death did as well.

For me, it's the tragedy that she did so much good for the world, and would have done so much more if her life had not been cut tragically short. And I've always wanted her sons to do well. That must have caused such heartbreak and confusion for them, to lose their mother that way. Not just a car accident--she was chased down by paparazzi.

Why do we care so much 20 years after the death of some troubled British ex-royal/ socialite?