Posts: 957
Ghost of Diana will overshadow royal wedding
By Phil Kloer
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
In 1995, Princess Diana looked back on her broken marriage to Prince Charles in an interview with the BBC program "Panorama."
"There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded," she said, referring to her husband's ongoing love for Camilla Parker Bowles.
Now, almost 10 years later, another marriage is planned, one that will also have three people in it: Charles, Parker Bowles and the ghost of Diana.
On Thursday, Charles announced he will marry Parker Bowles on April 8 at Windsor Castle. His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, also made her own announcement, notable for its restraint: "The Duke of Edinburgh and I are very happy that the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles are to marry. We have given them our warmest good wishes for their future together."
Rank and file Brits followed their queen in showing restraint. CNN's Fionnuala Sweeney said Thursday in London that people were offering "a muted response to a carefully choreographed announcement."
Hope there's no run on celebratory champagne.
How Charles and Parker Bowles manage their marriage will be up to them. But in terms of public perception - which is very much an issue for Britain's royal family - it's still all about Diana.
One of the headlines on CBS News' rolling online coverage of the wedding announcement pegged it perfectly: "What Would Di Think?"
How's that for a bouquet for the bride-to-be?
All over the world, it's all about the cult of Diana. Sure, some people are mildly interested in the queen or Charles or Princes William and Harry. But it's reminiscent of how we relate to the musical Jackson family. Some folks may keep up with what Janet or LaToya or Tito are doing, but there's only one Jackson who really matters.
And there's only one British royal who matters, even if she's dead. Maybe in part because she's dead.
If ever there was a Great Media Wallow to match the worldwide coverage of Diana's wedding in 1981 (estimated worldwide viewership of 750 million), it was the wall-to-wall wallow over Diana's death in 1997 (estimated worldwide viewership between 2 billion and 2.5 billion).
"The coverage of Diana's death is legendary in contemporary culture," said Dan Berkowitz, a professor of communication at the University of Iowa, who studied coverage of Diana's death.
In a matter of hours, she went from being a figure of some complexity and even occasional controversy to being an instant saint. For almost a week, U.S. networks held a televigil, replaying footage of Diana campaigning against land mines and hugging people with AIDS.
When Mother Teresa died six days after Diana, it was as if we'd used up all our hand-wringing. What might have been a more momentous death in the public eye came across on television as a footnote.
Diana had been loved from the moment Charles first appeared with her in public - loved by the tabloids, loved by television, loved by the paparazzi and loved by the public with a fierce and even dangerous obsessiveness.
At first, it was simplistic, just us projecting old fairy tales onto her blank screen as she rode to her wedding in a gilded carriage on a summer day. When everything got more complicated - the marriage falling apart, the reports of adultery, bulimia, depression - we didn't turn against her, but embraced her even more, as the latest embodiment of the poor little rich girl. Finally she joined the pantheon of the dead-too-soon, along with Marilyn Monroe and James Dean and JFK in icon heaven.
"Society and media will be measuring Parker Bowles by Diana's standard," said Berkowitz.
So far, it hasn't been going well.
"Charles and Camilla don't sell magazines anymore. They are middle-aged and boring-looking," said Judy Wade, royal correspondent for Hello magazine.
"There's a danger she could look like the mother of the bride. A discreet set of posies would also help set her apart so she doesn't look like a guest," said the aptly named Liz Savage, editor of Brides magazine.
There has been no word yet on whether the wedding will be televised, but if it is, British TV executives indicated they would be all over it, and it will surely be carried here as well. One way to watch would be to pick a network for coverage, then count the number of times the anchor and all the talking heads mention one name - the most prominent person not in attendance, but on everyone's mind.
By Phil Kloer
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
In 1995, Princess Diana looked back on her broken marriage to Prince Charles in an interview with the BBC program "Panorama."
"There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded," she said, referring to her husband's ongoing love for Camilla Parker Bowles.
Now, almost 10 years later, another marriage is planned, one that will also have three people in it: Charles, Parker Bowles and the ghost of Diana.
On Thursday, Charles announced he will marry Parker Bowles on April 8 at Windsor Castle. His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, also made her own announcement, notable for its restraint: "The Duke of Edinburgh and I are very happy that the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles are to marry. We have given them our warmest good wishes for their future together."
Rank and file Brits followed their queen in showing restraint. CNN's Fionnuala Sweeney said Thursday in London that people were offering "a muted response to a carefully choreographed announcement."
Hope there's no run on celebratory champagne.
How Charles and Parker Bowles manage their marriage will be up to them. But in terms of public perception - which is very much an issue for Britain's royal family - it's still all about Diana.
One of the headlines on CBS News' rolling online coverage of the wedding announcement pegged it perfectly: "What Would Di Think?"
How's that for a bouquet for the bride-to-be?
All over the world, it's all about the cult of Diana. Sure, some people are mildly interested in the queen or Charles or Princes William and Harry. But it's reminiscent of how we relate to the musical Jackson family. Some folks may keep up with what Janet or LaToya or Tito are doing, but there's only one Jackson who really matters.
And there's only one British royal who matters, even if she's dead. Maybe in part because she's dead.
If ever there was a Great Media Wallow to match the worldwide coverage of Diana's wedding in 1981 (estimated worldwide viewership of 750 million), it was the wall-to-wall wallow over Diana's death in 1997 (estimated worldwide viewership between 2 billion and 2.5 billion).
"The coverage of Diana's death is legendary in contemporary culture," said Dan Berkowitz, a professor of communication at the University of Iowa, who studied coverage of Diana's death.
In a matter of hours, she went from being a figure of some complexity and even occasional controversy to being an instant saint. For almost a week, U.S. networks held a televigil, replaying footage of Diana campaigning against land mines and hugging people with AIDS.
When Mother Teresa died six days after Diana, it was as if we'd used up all our hand-wringing. What might have been a more momentous death in the public eye came across on television as a footnote.
Diana had been loved from the moment Charles first appeared with her in public - loved by the tabloids, loved by television, loved by the paparazzi and loved by the public with a fierce and even dangerous obsessiveness.
At first, it was simplistic, just us projecting old fairy tales onto her blank screen as she rode to her wedding in a gilded carriage on a summer day. When everything got more complicated - the marriage falling apart, the reports of adultery, bulimia, depression - we didn't turn against her, but embraced her even more, as the latest embodiment of the poor little rich girl. Finally she joined the pantheon of the dead-too-soon, along with Marilyn Monroe and James Dean and JFK in icon heaven.
"Society and media will be measuring Parker Bowles by Diana's standard," said Berkowitz.
So far, it hasn't been going well.
"Charles and Camilla don't sell magazines anymore. They are middle-aged and boring-looking," said Judy Wade, royal correspondent for Hello magazine.
"There's a danger she could look like the mother of the bride. A discreet set of posies would also help set her apart so she doesn't look like a guest," said the aptly named Liz Savage, editor of Brides magazine.
There has been no word yet on whether the wedding will be televised, but if it is, British TV executives indicated they would be all over it, and it will surely be carried here as well. One way to watch would be to pick a network for coverage, then count the number of times the anchor and all the talking heads mention one name - the most prominent person not in attendance, but on everyone's mind.
