I think Diana was more famous. That said I remember watching the coverage of both of their deaths as a child. My mom was particularly devastated by jfk jr’s death but I think Diana’s was more global, consuming and long term covered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm French, and lived in Paris when Lady Di crashed in the tunnel. It was on all news channels, constantly, for days. I was vaguely aware that her personal life had been splashed in the papers for years before that, but I was a kid back then. I had never heard of JFK Jr. until his helicopter accident.

But maybe in this country there's more of an equivalency?

It was a small plane, not a helicopter.

Ah, sorry. Clearly I still don't know much about him.

You probably mixed that incident up with Kobe Bryant. Its understandable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm French, and lived in Paris when Lady Di crashed in the tunnel. It was on all news channels, constantly, for days. I was vaguely aware that her personal life had been splashed in the papers for years before that, but I was a kid back then. I had never heard of JFK Jr. until his helicopter accident.

But maybe in this country there's more of an equivalency?

It was a small plane, not a helicopter.

Ah, sorry. Clearly I still don't know much about him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On an international level, Diana was definitely the more famous of the two. Here in the US in the 90s though, I would say she and JFK Jr were on equal footing.

Absolutely false.

Not every American was obsessed with the British royals.

The thing about Diana was that you could know nothing about the British royals and you'd still know Diana. Also she was known by people of every age. I think JFK Jr. had a narrower demographic reach, consisting of Boomers nostalgic for his parents (which was not all Boomers and would skew towards Democrats, Catholics who idolized the Kennedys, and women) and women in their 20s in the 90s who would have considered him a lust object. But children, middle aged men, most Republicans -- these people didn't care about JFK Jr. But a lot of those people still cared about Diana.

PP here again. I'll add that Diana's funeral was on the day I got married. I was getting ready with the TV on and all of us glued to the coverage. Then my mom came into my room and turned it off - saying why on earth was I watching a funeral on my wedding day!

I'm the same age as Diana and JFK Jr. so I lived through their fame as an adult. I agree with everyone who says that Diana was much more internationally-known. I also agree with the PP who said Diana's fame and world-wide admiration was more akin to Jackie's.

I was from a working-class, immigrant family who knew NOTHING about the BRF, but all my friends and I got up at 4:00 a.m. to watch Charles and Diana's wedding. And discussed whether or not it was worth marrying that old, ugly guy to become a princess!

Anonymous wrote:Diana was world wide popular. JFKJ mostly a US thing.

This. Diana was global but JFK Jr was not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an Irish American Catholic in my 40s, so I was in my late teens when they each died. I was aware of Princess Di for my entire life. I had Princess Di and Grace Kelly paper dolls. I knew the iconic photo of JFK Jr saluting at his father’s funeral but I was not aware of JFK Jr as a celebrity in his own right until the Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes to his gym and fantasizes about him.

Isn’t the fact that the #1 American sitcom at the time had an episode with a character fantasizing about him an indication of the American perspective on his popularity and fame?

He was perfect for the show because he was a thoroughly NYC obsession. And NYC was pretty much the extent of his reach.

Diana was world wide popular. JFKJ mostly a US thing.

Yes, living outside the US, the only time I heard of jfk junior was in the news on the crash. Diana was everywhere though.

I would say they were pretty equal in how they were both viewed by the public.

I always thought when they were alive, that if they ever became a real-life couple how nuts pop culture would have went back then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crowds gathered to get a glimpse of Diana when she visited Chicago. No crowds for JFK JR

What visit to Chicago? There definitely are British royal fans that would know this, but I (middle aged American woman) have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/summer2016/campuslife/then-the-peoples-princess-diana-chicago-visit-1996.html

Lol JFK's *son*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crowds gathered to get a glimpse of Diana when she visited Chicago. No crowds for JFK JR

What visit to Chicago? There definitely are British royal fans that would know this, but I (middle aged American woman) have no idea what you are talking about.

The question is not: do you remember Diana's visit to Chicago in (checks wiki) 1996? The question is: did Diana and JFK Jr have similar levels of fame/celebrity when they were alive? As the PP noted, wherever she went in the US and throughout the world, Diana drew very large crowds. Her advocacy work was widely noted and admired. She met with heads of state worldwide. She was on the nightly news and in national and local newspapers, as well as in People mag.

I'm not a BRF fan. But I am 5-6 years younger than Diana and JFK Jr would be if they were still alive, so close to their contemporaries, so I remember them and the attention they got. It's honestly laughable to compare them--her fame far outshown him. She was one of the most recognized people in the world and in the US. He was not one of most recognized people in the US, nevermind the world. Most Americans did not know much about him other than that he was JFK's magazine. He was occasional tabloid fodder only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On an international level, Diana was definitely the more famous of the two. Here in the US in the 90s though, I would say she and JFK Jr were on equal footing.

Maybe for like a minute before they both died, after Diana's divorce when she was dating Dodi and no longer a formal member of the BRF. Like for a year or two they may have been treated somewhat similarly by the US tabloids.

But at that point, Diana had been followed closely by people in the US for over a decade, including her marriage, the birth of both her children, her marital troubles, her divorce, her eating disorder and mental health struggles, her charitable work, and finally her post-divorce personal renaissance.

All people knew about JFK Jr. when he died was the tragedy with his dad, the fact that he'd dated a series of actresses before marrying a blonde lady who worked in fashion, he founded a magazine that was not very successful, and he had a great head of hair.

It's not really comparable.

I think there are people in the US who consume BRF news like they are Brits, and there are people in the US that consider the Kennedys to be the American version of the BRF. This was at its peak in the late 80s and 90s. Diana had been a public figure for longer, but JFK Jr was all over American media in the late 80s and 90s: the bar exam failures, the girlfriends, the Sexiest Man Alive title, his relationship with Carolyn, their public spats, the engagement and secret wedding, etc.

But Diana was also all over the news at this time. E.g. her 1989 visit to NYC, where she hugged a hospitalized child with AIDS was front page news on newspapers nationwide. People saw frequently saw coverage of Diana on the nightly news (which was watched by most households).

JFK Jr was a favorite topic of People magazine. That's it.

I’m in my late 40s, so the right age range for this discussion, and I have no recollection of the 1989 visit to the NYC hospital. I knew who Diana was during that time and the major talking points about her and the tabloid stories, but I was not following her every move.

No one is saying they were necessarily following her every move. But orders of magnitude more people knew of her, knew about herthean knew of/about JFK Jr.

I also will point out that in 1989 you were, what, 11?