Pleassssse, somebody.  Wake me up.  I thought we were all done with Princess Diana.  But we’re not, because this is the 10th year anniversary of her death.  In other words, it’s a terrific opportunity to dust her off and to put her back up on the pedestal so that we can envy her, admire her for her so-called accomplishments and (most of all) become entranced with her image.

While waiting at a pharmacy, I leafed through the June 2007 edition of Good Housekeeping Magazine because Princess Diana’s photo is boldly featured on the front cover.  As I picked it up, I thought “Not again . . .”  This issue of Good Housekeeping also features a hagiography (what else was ever written about Princess Diana?) The reappearance of Diana aggravated me enough that I’m now sitting down to aggravate you with this rant.

The article describes Diana as “young, luminous and full of promise.”  We are told that “she was worried about doing the right thing.”  In fact, she was “saintly and endlessly giving.” I have heard it all before, though, and I’ve never been impressed with these sorts of accolades.  After all, Diana lived a plush life of glitz.  She mingled with her favorite musicians (such as Elton John) and she made unending appearances at fancy dinner parties where she wore her fancy gowns and smiled her fancy smile.  She “passionately followed music theatre and ballet.”

That’s what this article tells me, anyway.  It also tells me that she was “a good friend” to some people.  Talk about a low bar.  Truly, she was born into the British aristocracy and had the good life handed to her on a silver platter.  At a minimum, she should have at least been able to enjoy the arts and not piss off everybody.  Isn’t that what we would expect of anyone who had everything handed to them, that they would at least do something for the world? 

Shouldn’t rich and famous people of leisure be lending their names and images to worthy causes? Diana’s causes were ridding the world of landmines and working against discrimination of AIDS patients.  These aren’t bad things, of course, but you have to ask yourself what would people would have thought of her had she (again, a person of great wealth and leisure) not lent her name and image to some worthy causes?   Further, doing a bit of charity is a relatively cheap Machiavellian maneuver for portraying that one has “character,” especially anyone willing to present herself as a “Princess.”

Diana’s shtick worked impressively.  In the weeks following her death, more words were written about Diana (and her so-called accomplishments) than could ever be read by any human being in a lifetime.  It was truly an unimaginable quantity of material, and almost all of it was motivated by something other than real world assessment.  As I read some of it, I couldn’t help but think that there were thousands of people of real character in every major city who have worked hard to really make something of themselves despite insurmountable odds.  There are real people who have poured their energies back into their communities, where their tortured upbringings would suggest that we had no right to expect such generosity.

Diana died on August 31, 1997.  The frenzied media ran out of superlatives to describe Diana’s great accomplishments after they reached “saint.”  It was with some schadenfreude, then, that I contemplated the September 5, 1997 death of Mother Teresa.  After all, if Princess Diana was a “saint,” what was Mother Teresa?  With Mother Teresa’s death only one week after Diana’s, the media was exposed.  It had not really been reporting the news.  It was merely manipulating its readers to sell ads.  Further, Diane, and especially dead Diana, served as an excuse for a social lek.  To a large extent, Diana was not really about Diana. 

When we admire/adore/love someone, they can do no wrong in our book. We need to beware of this tendency.  Princess Diana is a perfect example.  Many people reached out to her and attempted to empathize with her because she was presented by a manipulative press as a regular person and a victim.  When that PR seed took root, the accolades sprouted vigorously in every direction.  I had not seen anything like it since Jacqueline Onassis and we have not seen anything like it since. It was a totally unapologetic loss of objectivity.  It was the confirmation bias run amok.

The media version of Diana was a concocted and conniving endeavor to create a hero out of ordinariness.  We see such attempts all the time among celebrities.  Pick up any random edition of People Magazine, for instance.  Most famous people have their pet causes.  Good for them, but we shouldn’t get carried away with these strategic moves to further images and careers.

Consider the people who can’t say enough good things about people we really don’t know anything about, such as sports stars, movie stars and political stars.  Here’s two often-encounted examples. I’ve often heard people talk with great affection about Mickey Mouse.  When I hear this, I ask them what Mickey Mouse accomplished and what kind of character he was.  I rarely hear anything at all.  Nonetheless, Mickey Mouse is apparently loved by all.  Jesus Christ is another example of someone of whom we know very little (there’s good reason to wonder whether he existed at all), yet the people who adore him are not dissuaded by the gaping holes in the historical and biblical records or the troubling aspects of his alleged teachings.

I don’t despise Princes Diana.  On the other hand, the things she accomplished were the ordinary sorts of things that people of great wealth and power should accomplish.  So don’t tell me that you admire her or you adore her unless you have good reason for saying these things.  Don’t tell me she was a saint.  Don’t tell me you “miss” her or “love” her, unless you really knew her. 

Please, let her rest in peace.