That could be just the passage of time–or a rediscovered sense of proportion. The British are re-assessing their attitudes to the great emotional splurge of 1997. A poll this month in the London Evening Standard found that 46 percent considered that reaction to the princess’s death “hysterical.” Says historian Philip Ziegler: “It was just a shock reaction to circumstances that could never be repeated.”
Attitudes about the principal players in the royal melodrama have changed too. The core royals are no longer tradition-bound villains determined to keep down the “People"s Princess.” The death of the Queen Mother and this summer’s Golden Jubilee celebrations prompted an upsurge of old-fashioned monarchist sentiment and increased popularity for Queen Elizabeth. Meanwhile, the Evening Standard poll also showed majority support for a marriage between the Prince of Wales and his long-time mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles–the woman once vilified as a royal marriage-breaker.
What’s telling is the lack of lavish memorials to the princess. The first flush of grief brought plenty of bold ideas for commemorative projects, from a statue in Trafalgar Square to an annual Diana Day holiday. But work has still to begin on the official memorial in Kensington Gardens. (Enthusiasm appears to have waned in France, too. The authorities in Paris have shelved for five years a proposal to name a street after the princess.)
Stalwart supporters of the princess see dark forces at work. Since Diana’s death, the Prince of Wales has learned to play the media with the same skill that the princess herself once deployed. Maybe his office, say the critics, has somehow speeded the process of forgetting. Certainly, the family won’t be taking part in any public acts of commemoration this weekend. According to a spokeswoman for the prince, Princes William and Harry would be “remembering their mother in their own private way.”
Could it really be deliberate policy? “It certainly feels like there is a conspiracy to forget, and the finger of suspicion points at St. James’s Palace,” says Vivienne Parry, who worked with the princess on her charitable work and later served as a trustee with the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.
Not that Diana’s impact on the royals has been erased. Paradoxically, one of her greatest legacies could be the rediscovered affection for the family that had been her toughest enemies. Indeed, Diana’s death–once the cause of such hostility toward the royals–played a key role in their rehabilitation. “Whenever there’s a threat to the popularity of the royal family, it’s a sense of suffering that wins people round to them,” says Michael Billig, a sociology professor who’s tracked attitudes toward the royals. “They are seen in a position of vulnerability; in this case, Prince Charles had become a single parent.”
Better still, the princess may have bequeathed her example. Diana showed how much the public appreciated open-hearted informality. And the palace was watching. On view now is a more relaxed monarch. This summer’s 50th anniversary festivities for Queen Elizabeth, for example, included a mass reception for the press at Windsor Castle. “The queen went around chatting easily to newspaper editors who had been incredibly savage about the monarchy in the past,” marvels Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty magazine. “By royal standards they have been incredibly informal.” Diana’s best memorial could be a smiling queen and a throne secured for her son.
