Prince Harry is marrying Meghan, not a new Diana
Since 1997, we’ve hankered for the ‘new Diana’ on some selfish level
‘Mother Teresa – she had it,” Paul Burrell, butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, told anyone who would listen back in August. “Pope John Paul II had it, the Queen has it, Diana certainly had it. Kate doesn’t.”
The royal snitch hasn’t yet weighed in on whether Meghan Markle has “that extra something which you call the X factor, the magic quality, charisma”, but he will – along with everyone else. Because what Burrell was really talking about, and what we’ve all been scouring Markle for, isn’t the “X factor” or the “It factor” but “the Diana factor”. From the moment it became apparent Prince Harry was enjoying more than a flirtation with the 36-yearold Suits star, Markle was having her looks, clothes, behaviour and intentions compared with Diana’s.
Never mind that Markle is American, 16 years older than Lady Diana Spencer when she married Charles, far more worldly, a divorcee, biracial and a completely different person, we’re going to keep pushing that square peg into a round hole. If it doesn’t fit, which it won’t, as Meghan is a completely different person, then surely we’ll have cause to complain?
I have a suggestion, and I warn you: it’s a little wild. Why don’t we ditch the comparisons? Why don’t we give Meghan the break Kate never had and allow her to – deep breath – be her own person?
Ever since the summer of 1997, we have hankered for “the new Diana”, so on some very selfish, childlike and prurient level, we both need the new Diana and feel we’re owed the new Diana. But here are two unwelcome truths: there was only one of her and, just like every icon and celebrity whom people have ever creepily claimed as theirs, Diana never actually belonged to “the people”.
Insomuch as any human being ever belongs to another, Diana belonged only to her sons, who have themselves expressed veiled annoyance at the British tendency to try to superimpose their mother’s effigy on the women in their lives. “No one is trying to fill my mother’s shoes,” Prince William felt obliged to point out in the build-up to his marriage to the Duchess of Cambridge, when the column inches devoted to dredging up even the most tenuous similarities between his mother and Catherine became farcical, and when every haircut, dress and royal engagement was either his wife-to-be “paying homage” to Diana, a “nod” or a “tribute”. And I’m sure Prince Harry would echo that sentiment today.
I say “British tendency” – and we did start it – but, boy, did the Americans, the French, the Italians, the Germans and the Spanish take our cue and run with it. Attempting to revive our idols in this way is neither new nor particular to us. Every US president is compared and contrasted with JFK, every First Lady dubbed “the new Jackie”, every blonde actress “the new Marilyn”, every brunette Audrey; every female prime minister anywhere in the Western world will forever be compared with Thatcher, and every male prime minister over here to Churchill – both, inevitably, unfavourably.
Although a lot of comparisons are plain old lazy-mindedness, some come from a place of nostalgia and fondness (if it’s possible to be fond of someone you never knew). If only everybody could be as impressive as that icon you once worshipped. How reassuring it would be if the public figures we see as members of our extended family – and are entitled to gossip about – would always be there?
It’s also true that, in the case of charity work, Diana comparisons may be beneficial: they do seem to help to extend the legacy that the Princess worked so hard to create. As Markle undertook her inaugural official engagement yesterday in Nottingham on World Aids Day, charity campaigners stressed how much power Markle will have to be able to throw a spotlight on the topics that others “would rather shy away from” – and how hopeful they are that, in that respect at least, she is like Diana.
In any other arena, however, Diana comparisons are pointless. They’re also an excuse to be unpleasant or bitchy about a woman whom none of us yet know and very few of us ever will. We may get glimpses of her personality in the build-up to her big day in May and over the years to come, but they will be few and far between.
As a successful actress, Markle has had plenty of practice playing with her public-versusprivate personas and, although nobody can ever be prepared for the kind of scrutiny she will now be under, I expect she will find it all easier than her shy and inexperienced late motherin-law. There’s another Diana comparison for you, but let it be the last. And every time you’re inclined to make one from now on, just think of Burrell, who will live off them for the rest of his days. Think of his face. Think of how tawdry, unhelpful and just plain old futile those comparisons are.
Then let Harry and Meghan get on with this exciting new phase of their lives.