gesture – and no one had ever proved to be better at this than Diana herself – but the royal family simply didn’t seem to understand that, at times, it is best to ignore protocol and give the people what they want.
The media is often accused of manipulating events to its own advantage; the reality is that the best papers reflectwhat the rest of the country feels and wants. This was an absolute case in point. As the royals appeared indifferent to the fate of the woman who had at times brought them to the brink of disaster, anger grew. And the papers, rather than whipping up indignation, merely reflected what the rest of the country thought. The headlines started to appear and the Mirror pictured two grieving subjects: YOUR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING. SPEAK TO US, MA’AM ran the headline. Inside, the editorial went on, ‘Now at this time, more than ever, the Queen must show she has learnt from Diana. That she understands how we are feeling.’ Many of the other papers came out in similar vein.
This was new territory: while most royals had to put up with a certain degree of criticism at some point in their lives (indeed, some had to suffer a great deal), the Queen herself had been untouchable. Such was the respect and affection in which she was held that, under normal circumstances, none would have dared to criticise the Monarch. Circumstances were anything but normal now. And, to cap all that, the media suddenly found itself in the dock: Diana had been killed in a car crash as she was being chased by the paparazzi and, as her brother Earl Spencer (who had, by this time, developed a loathing for the newspapers) put it, many now believed that some sections of the media had ‘blood on their hands’.
No one seemed to know what to do. In an editorial, the Mirror admitted it had not ‘always been innocent’. Meanwhile, the Sun begged its readers not to cast blame. It was an extraordinary situation to be in: on the one hand, thepapers were benefiting from Diana’s death because people were buying them for the daily supplements and to keep up with the story; on the other, they themselves were being blamed for having had a hand in the Princess’s demise.
It was announced that Diana’s funeral would be held at Westminster Abbey. Most of the editors, including Piers, were invited to attend – only to be uninvited shortly afterwards by the vengeful Lord Spencer. They accepted the ruling and without attempting much of a fight back (on that point, at least) decided to stay away. Bowing to pressure, the Queen finally made a public broadcast and the family came down from Balmoral to London; they went out to inspect the numerous floral tributes left by a devoted public. Public anger towards the royals was beginning to lessen, although fury about the role of the press lingered.
When Lord Spencer spoke at his sister’s funeral at Westminster Abbey, fuel was added to the flames. It was a huge affair and Spencer used the occasion to lay the blame at every door he could think of, including the royal family and the press. The Windsors were castigated for removing her HRH – she ‘needed no royal title’ to generate her magic, he said – before turning his attention to the press. ‘She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment she received at the hands of the newspapers,’ he spat. Wisely, the newspapers themselves held their counsel, although ultimately the funeral oration was seen by some as a mark of bad judgement on Spencer’s part. What should have been a time of healing instead seemed to turn into an all-out war.
Piers – and the others – kept quiet on the matter but, perhaps understandably, it wasn’t long before they had finally had enough. Princess Diana certainly had her fair share of media attention but, as everyone involved in the press knew at the time, she had also been an active participant. Both she and Charles had used the media in the ‘War of the Waleses’ and,
The media is often accused of manipulating events to its own advantage; the reality is that the best papers reflectwhat the rest of the country feels and wants. This was an absolute case in point. As the royals appeared indifferent to the fate of the woman who had at times brought them to the brink of disaster, anger grew. And the papers, rather than whipping up indignation, merely reflected what the rest of the country thought. The headlines started to appear and the Mirror pictured two grieving subjects: YOUR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING. SPEAK TO US, MA’AM ran the headline. Inside, the editorial went on, ‘Now at this time, more than ever, the Queen must show she has learnt from Diana. That she understands how we are feeling.’ Many of the other papers came out in similar vein.
This was new territory: while most royals had to put up with a certain degree of criticism at some point in their lives (indeed, some had to suffer a great deal), the Queen herself had been untouchable. Such was the respect and affection in which she was held that, under normal circumstances, none would have dared to criticise the Monarch. Circumstances were anything but normal now. And, to cap all that, the media suddenly found itself in the dock: Diana had been killed in a car crash as she was being chased by the paparazzi and, as her brother Earl Spencer (who had, by this time, developed a loathing for the newspapers) put it, many now believed that some sections of the media had ‘blood on their hands’.
No one seemed to know what to do. In an editorial, the Mirror admitted it had not ‘always been innocent’. Meanwhile, the Sun begged its readers not to cast blame. It was an extraordinary situation to be in: on the one hand, thepapers were benefiting from Diana’s death because people were buying them for the daily supplements and to keep up with the story; on the other, they themselves were being blamed for having had a hand in the Princess’s demise.
It was announced that Diana’s funeral would be held at Westminster Abbey. Most of the editors, including Piers, were invited to attend – only to be uninvited shortly afterwards by the vengeful Lord Spencer. They accepted the ruling and without attempting much of a fight back (on that point, at least) decided to stay away. Bowing to pressure, the Queen finally made a public broadcast and the family came down from Balmoral to London; they went out to inspect the numerous floral tributes left by a devoted public. Public anger towards the royals was beginning to lessen, although fury about the role of the press lingered.
When Lord Spencer spoke at his sister’s funeral at Westminster Abbey, fuel was added to the flames. It was a huge affair and Spencer used the occasion to lay the blame at every door he could think of, including the royal family and the press. The Windsors were castigated for removing her HRH – she ‘needed no royal title’ to generate her magic, he said – before turning his attention to the press. ‘She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment she received at the hands of the newspapers,’ he spat. Wisely, the newspapers themselves held their counsel, although ultimately the funeral oration was seen by some as a mark of bad judgement on Spencer’s part. What should have been a time of healing instead seemed to turn into an all-out war.
Piers – and the others – kept quiet on the matter but, perhaps understandably, it wasn’t long before they had finally had enough. Princess Diana certainly had her fair share of media attention but, as everyone involved in the press knew at the time, she had also been an active participant. Both she and Charles had used the media in the ‘War of the Waleses’ and,
Similar Books
