Diana Princess of Wales

Do you believe Princess Diana brought the British monarchy to the brink of collapse?

Or did you expect it to happen at some time or another? Do you dislike her for that? Or do you applaud her?

Public Comments

1. I don't think the monarchy was in danger of collapse.
2. No, not at all. But she certainly did give it her best. good luck!
3. I believe is was Prince Charles who had the affair and blew things up. Diana was beloved by all Brits and still remains in their hearts. I believe Diana made the monarchy relevant again for the masses and the monarchy still benefits from her influence. However, I'm sure the Queen feels otherwise :)
4. She has been misused and misunderstand by Charles and his mom. It was a wonderful love-ling lady who has suffered a lot. The British monarchy is missing so much since she has left.. -R
5. The monarchy has been in danger of collapse on more than one occasion, Diana had zero to do with any potential collapse, that honor wold go to Charles and his unholy passion for the beautiful Cowmilla. Also the antics of his brothers and his son Harry behaving atrociously in public for people who are supposed to have class. On the contrary, it was Diana who gave the royal family things it badly needed, class, compassion and a human heart.
6. She wanted to be a princess, so she made a play for Prince Charles, pretending to share his tastes and hobbies and so on. Then when she found that being royal wasn't as much fun as she had thought, she let their marriage fall apart. After they were divorced, she did her best to sabotage Charles and the monarchy for the rest of her life.
7. Like most of the European royal houses, the British ruling dynasty was insular and (dare I say it) inbred to the point where they'd created a closed culture all of their very own. When the Heir married a woman from outside the usual circles and brought in fresh blood with ideas of her own, nobody guessed how fresh the new blood was and how at odds its ideas were going to be with those of the Family. I mean - who outside the Mafia and the House of Windsor-Battenberg ever refers to themselves as "The Family"? Oh, Diana was in her way just another vapid upper-class clotheshorse, and certainly no saint - but didn't she just stir things up, to such an extent that the British ruling royals were dragged, kicking and screaming, into at least the eighteenth century... whether monarchy in Britain survives the next two generations is a moot point, perhaps. George VI deserves the respect of history for the qualities he brought to kingship in WW2. His daughter inherited a lot of her father's positive qualities and because of this she has respect and goodwill that her son probably will not enjoy. (although he's sixty now - his reign is likely to be as short as Edward VII, who succeeded his mother Victoria when he was well into his fifties). Will King William be able to trade on popular feeling not about his father, but about his mother, to preserve the monarchy? Or will he just prove to be an out-of-touch upper class twerp par excellence? now all we need an answer on is whether Hewitt and not Charley fathered her second son! (I mean, does he look even remotely like Charles?)
8. Heck no! They have been on the brink of collapse since long before that...wait! If that were true, then they would have collapsed by now! How does one sit on the brink of collapse for this long? But no...on the contrary, she brought fresh life and interest in the Royal Family, and fresh blood into the bloodline, which was beginning to thin.
9. I think Charles extra marital relationship with Camilla did more to bring down public perception of the monarchy since any time from the days of Edward and Mrs Simpson. Diana with all her imperfections brought a breath of fresh air to what was becoming a staid and inward looking monarchy. We can thank her for ensuring William and Harry were raised with at least some kind of idea of what the real world is like. They weren't shielded to the degree Charles was through palace courtiers and a string of nannies. I applaud her for her sense of fun, her fresh take on what the monarchy should be today (and the Queen has since adopted some of this too) and not running away from the hard choices that had to be made.
10. Diana had her own agenda she wanted to marry charles from an early age and as history has shown the heir to the throne has had affairs so maybe she should have read her history books and worked harder at school, her mother had run off and left her children with their fater and a stepmother to whom diana was not loving so one could ask how much of her public persona was an act and how much was real. She dropped "friends " quickly one being elton john whom she only made up with just before her own death, as to charles and camilla her childern seen to know that they are happy and isn't that all they want As to the Father of prince harry he may not look like his father but he looks like his uncle charles and his two maternal aunts...................
11. No, she tried but didnt succeed. I neither dislike her nor applaud her for it, she was a woman scorned.
12. I don't think she came anywhere near bringing the monarachy to the "brink of collapse". I do think that she was a cause of embarrassment to the monarchy. I think the teeny-bopper 'worship' of her was ridiculous. I think that people have given the Palace no credit whatsoever for the role they played in Diana's 'charities'. It doesn't take much brilliance to know that all her appearances were organized, paid for, and backed by the Palace, not her personally. I think she acted like a spoiled brat. Sulking like a spoiled 14 year old when she was well into her 20s with two children to rear. Bestowing this arrogant clothes horse with saintlike qualities, indicates some real stupidity to me. AND to repeat for the record: her death would have been avoided had she or her idiot playboy lover told the driver to slow down; so what if the newsmen looked in the windows? Mercedes can have curtain, you know?? Or if either of those arrogant, spoiled rich people had obeyed the law and common sense and put on their seat beats, they'd probably be swilling champagne and lounging on a yatch somewhere as we read this. I do not think the monarchy is near the brink of collapse now, either. William is liked. The UK is a democracy of sorts, and the monarchy COULD be voted out if the people wished it, and it would have been a long time ago. The fact is, the people of the UK seem to want the Royals, and there are just a loud, whiny minority talking it down. Just an opinion from an American. Long Live the Queen.
13. The Princess Diana never was a threat to the House of Windsor.
14. I don't think anyone thought she was going to bring down the monarchy. It took a bad public relations beating. ------------ The monarchy exists at the will of the people. I think the decision to execute King Charles I, and then the vote to restore the monarchy means that the monarchy has existed since 1660 because people want it. Parliament has controlled the bulk of the money since 1760 anyway. The anti-royal rhetoric on this site is very much in the minority (although I'll grant that the ambivelant group is probably larger than the pro and con groups).
15. No. All Royal families need a scandal or something news worthy to happen so people will be interested in them. I mean their screw ups just mean they are normal people like us except they have royal titles and receive money from the country to help support them.
16. Her life exposed the Windsors for what they really are a bunch of rich welfare bums.
17. no; how many ppl mourned her death, the entire world knows!
18. To be perfectly honest I'm not too familiar with British politics, but I was under the impression that Tony Blair was your version of Bush, is that true?