"I would rather be the Queen of people's hearts," Lady Diana Spencer said.
In once sense, a noble sentiment. Who needs the trappings of royalty if they merely trip up one's gait? She could influence people just by being who she was, without an unfaithful husband or unsupportive in-laws.
Yet this begs the question: who was she? And what kind of influence was she hoping to have? What does it say about the adoring public who still long for her presence long after her death?
Obviously, the press could not get enough of her. Her inclination to be prominent was her own wish, which inadvertently led to her death. She is not responsible for the lecherous photophiliacs who stalked her, but she did goad them to follow her with her beauty and desire to impact millions.
Also, was this person worthy to be the queen of people's hearts? She had stepped out on Charles, too. A photogenic congeniality does not a worthy soul make.
What is the infatuation that the world has with Princess Di, now fifteen years after her death? She was a timorous Cinderella facing off against the cold, cruel monarchy. Yet despite the recriminations of the press, Queen Elizabeth and her coterie have risen above the fraud and tabloid gossip.
Everyone wants to be like Di: a beautiful victim, inducing pity and awe from the masses without having to do anything for it. Yet being a victim has its price: to be the foil and following for the fickle public who will stop at nothing to engorge their obsessive following. For Di, the pursuing public, pulled by her popularity, led to her untimely death, which incidentally transformed a wronged princess into forever royalty and media martyrdom.