Skip to main content

Prince Harry at 36 vs Princess Diana at 36

 Prince Harry is 36 years old today, roughly halfway through his time on this mortal coil, if you go by the average life expectancy for a British male. 

99-year-old Prince Philip is really an outlier; most of the men in Elizabeth's family didn't make it past their mid-70s, and Diana's father died at 68.

Thirty-six has a special poignancy for Harry, of course, because it is also the age at which his mother died.

The cult of celebrity

Diana helped create the turn-of-the-century cult of celebrity and the media to support it. Harry, ironically, has exposed its emptiness.

Once-respected establishment media names like Vanity Fair and USA Today are coo-ing over Harry's fabulous new Hollywood mansion, generous Netflix producing deal, satisfying marriage to an intelligent and glamorous woman, and proud fatherhood to a red-haired baby boy.

Does anyone really believe this? And even if they do, do they care?

In a time of pandemic, mass demonstrations, and violence, the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world

And while Diana was constantly pursued by the media, Harry has to pay PR people to pay establishment media outlets to run news about him and Meghan.

(You can see some of those pay-to-play outlets in today's run of Prince Harry birthday stories, like Yahoo Entertainment and Tulsa World.)

The role of social media

Another difference between Diana at 36 and Harry at 36 is the role of social media. In 1997, social media wasn't much more than a few AOL chatrooms and a few random message boards.

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit were all almost a decade away, and the Daily Mail existed only on paper.

Before her death, Diana was experiencing a dip in popularity. The public was tired of her drama, and didn't particularly like her boyfriend of the moment, Dodi Fayed. 

But if you were around at that time and followed Diana, there were not many people you could talk with about it. There were your friends and family, maybe your barber or beautician. 

You could choose to buy or not buy magazine or newspapers with Di's face on them, which was a way for the media industry to gauge her popularity. 

(I don't even want to think about what Twitter trolls would have done with Di's many romances with married men, or how they would have handled her gruesome death.)

Transparency changes the world

Today, of course, we can all share our opinions of Meghan and Harry through this blog and many other outlets. 

We can find many other people out there who share our opinion of the Sussexes, and amplify it. We can can share information and speculate together about things that are hidden. 

Diana felt that she was not in control of the media intrusion into her life, but at least there were a limited number of outlets that could publish gossip about her or photos.

Harry has no such control. Almost everyone in the Western world has access to platforms that reach an international audience. 

Bad news about him travels fast, and it's easy to point out his hypocrisies and broken promises by linking to earlier stories.

The transparency and access to information that has developed over the past twenty years has changed society in many ways - who would have imagined that we would all be watching the deaths of individuals on police bodycams or from multiple cellphone angles? - but it has also taken much of the awe and mystery away from celebrities and royals. 

Celebrity and royal glamour are what Harry and Meghan need to sell in order to support their lavish living. 

It's not a hot product at the moment the way it was in 1997, when Diana was 36 years old. 


Comments

Maneki Neko said…
Just seen a funny comment in the DM about Trump's statement wishing Harry luck:

Al, Birmingham

"She knows what it's like to be voiceless".. that's funny.


She's certainly not been voiceless of late.
Maneki Neko said…
Megalo preaches about voting but this comment from the DM is interesting. I'm not on Twitter but perhaps some Nutties on Twitter could find out if interested;

SmugSkidMarkle, Smirkleville, United States, 4 hours ago

There's a document circulating around Twitter right now that shows what years Smirkle & her mother voted. Apparently there are companies that mine that kind of data. It just shows the years they voted, but not who the candidate was or what party affliation they held. Smirk & Doria weren't regular voters by any stretch of the imagination...especially since sanctimonious Ms Thang said you don't exist if you don't vote.


emeraldcity said…
Not only is the UK media slaming The Gruesomes for their very public heavily biased US election vote drive but the US media is now hopping on the 'STFU Duchess' wagon

https://spectator.us/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-voting-rights-activist/


Are we sure she still has a PR firm working for her or is she orchestrating her own public relations disasters now?
Shaggy said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Surely some sort of high level action has to happen now she’s upset the president of the US?

The much-maligned Ann Widdecombe* never said a truer word than when she reacted to news of the engagement by saying,

`She’s trouble.’

Can any Nutty envisage Harry being granted US citizenship now?

Even if she wanted British citizenship, would she be allowed it?

I can see the presence of each being judged as not conducive to the good of the other’s country.

Will this be the endgame?

*a controversial English politician, no longer an MP.
lizzie said…
@Maneki Neko re: M's voting record:

I had wondered about that earlier and had googled around without any success (except to find Doria's registration is currently active, she's affiliated with the democrat party, and her official residence is still the house she inherited.) One's party affiliation and if one votes IS a matter of public record but I couldn't find D's voting record. I'm sure it's there though. As is Meghan's.

I know in part because several years ago I got what was IMO a very insulting letter from one of the political parties in my state (per blog rules won't say which one) complaining about my voting record. At that time, I was registered as affiliated with that party. What I'd missed weren't general elections but primaries where I just didn't give a hoot because either 1) I truly had no preference OR 2) there was only one candidate who had any possible chance of winning the primary anyway. So I know those data can be mined. And in my state, publicly available rolls show when a person first registered. That may vary state to state though as Doria's doesn't say at least in what I found.

Last year, after a suit brought by Judicial Watch, CA was forced to purge a bunch of inactive voters from its rolls, including 1.5 million in LA County. At that time, 112% of the county's adult population was registered to vote :-) Federal law requires removal of registrations that are inactive after two general elections, or two to four years.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Meghan was purged because she never voted absentee when in Canada. Until recently, she never spouted off about voting (even when she was publicly spouting off.) Of course, CA's state tax rate is high, so if she could have given up her CA residency while in Canada (not her US citizenship obviously but her state residency) she may have done that.
The opening of today’s D.Telegraph piece:

`Buckingham Palace has distanced itself from the Duke of Sussex, as he risked a diplomatic row after joining a voting drive for the US presidential election.

The Duke urged Americans to "reject hate speech" as “we approach this November”, as he ventured into the arena of politics for the first time since leaving the Royal Family.

His intervention will cause deep concern both for the reputation of the Royal Family and the diplomatic “special relationship” between the UK and US, and has been described as “unwise”.’


And the end:

The Duchess’s own previous campaigning has been seen by insiders as less controversial, given her position as a US citizen whose political views are already well-known.

But the Duke’s decision to join the voter registration crusade has raised eyebrows, described variously as "crossing the line", a "diplomatic incident" and "a problem".

While they did not endorse a party or candidate, the comments were interpreted as criticism of President Trump and his supporters.

It follows a series of campaigning appearances from the Duchess, who spoke of the importance of voting for “change” alongside notable Democrat supporters.

Until now the Duke, the grandson of the Queen, has felt an obligation to remain outside of any political discussion, having made an undertaking to uphold the values of the Queen when he left the working Royal Family in January.

A source close to the Duke said his words were not party political or aimed at any individual, including President Trump, but referred only to the level of online debate surrounding the election.'


I’ve also just read, but have lost track of, a quotation from Vernon Bodanor (constitutional historian) with wtte that members of the RF may think as they like regarding politics but must not say or do anything `to embarrass the Queen’. Being obviously partisan is, presumably, one of those things, as, I imagine, is irritating another Head of State.
emeraldcity said…


I notice she's changed her hair colour recently, in the Times 100 video she had the usual jet black Morticia's Spaniel hairdo and in the AGT video it had been tinted lighter. Seems like the Times video was fimed well beforehand, it also seems like she has been reading the blogs regarding how unflatering the old do was, less bronzer too.

Sandie said…
The @sussexsquad Twitter account has been suspended. Hilarious! What was that you were saying about online hate and divisive speech, and bullying, Harry, and did not you and your wife collaborate with and praise the @sussexsquad? I don't remember you ever calling them out for or distancing yourself from their repeated threats and attacks against the Cambridges and the rest of your family!
Responding to Lizzie re US voting procedure –

Wow! So much info gathered by officialdom!

In the UK, the secrecy of the ballot is taken very seriously.

No declaration of affiliation required when getting on the Electoral Roll.

There’s even a row going on about getting voters to prove their identity at the polling station, to stop the use of phantom registration/`vote early, vote often’/voting in one place in person & by post elsewhere .

You’re not obliged to reveal intentions to canvassers who come to your door, nor those who badger you at the door trying to construct an Exit Poll.

My answer?

`Sorry, that’s between me and the Ballot Box!’

In theory, it might be possible to identify who voted for whom by matching the number on the slip with records of who was given which slip (a thankless task which might be appealing to a police state) but those who see the ballot papers at the Count do not know which paper is whose.
lizzie said…
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,

One point I didn't make clear at all but should have for non-American readers...one can certainly register as an "independent" or be listed as "unaffiliated" when registering to vote. In my state, the party choices are Constitution, Democratic, Green, Libertarian and Republican although the main parties are obviously Democratic and Republican.

The issue is voting in a party primary. State laws differ on primaries (because of the way the US is set up states do have some independence.) But if you know you want to weigh in on who, say, the Democratic party fields as its presidential candidate, you have to affiliate with that party in some states. Same with other parties. In my state, an unaffiliated voter can vote in ONE primary. A voter affiliated with a party can vote only in that party's primary.

Once the general election rolls around, it doesn't matter. Every eligible voter in the state gets the same ballot for the statewide and the federal elections. And no records of voting choices are kept for a voter--just whether the person voted. And no, I don't respond to pre-election surveys or exit polls either!
Weekittylass said…
I would hope that the US Ambassador is having a word with Dominic Raab in regards to Hapless’s interference in a US election.
Sandie said…
Meghan's appearance on that talent show ...

The set up of the couch, the books and so on is all Meghan. I suspect that Harry would not decorate his home like this. No photos of family and no photos of African wildlife, plus the predictable Meghan colours. Maybe he gets to decorate the broom closet any way he wants to!

And are they really sitting watching talent shows? I can't imagine either of them being huge fans of a show that is all about showcasing and celebrating people who are not them. This was arranged by her PR, who have been told to scour for opportunities for her to make an appearance!

Gosh, that women does insert herself everywhere! But, to what end? Any merching she is doing is bringing in small change. No big multi-million dollar deal to advertise perfume, make up, clothes ... unlike with major HW stars of all ages, for her the offers just have not been there. No photo spreads in magazines (unlike the young, beautiful, sasy and talented Zendaya Coleman, who is everywhere). Desparatey clawing her way into any public platform that is getting the most attention in the moment. She should do a reality show - the hubris of the narcissist would always be entertaining!
none said…
@Sandie

Good point about the set up. So staged. I could read two of the book titles. Women and Black Godfather. Wonder why Harry wasn't with her.
Thank you, Lizzie, for the clarification.

I'm learning a lot about US elections here - previously, they seemed mystifying!
Sandie. Zendaya... in her dreams. A beautiful, eloquent 22 year old who seems to be equally comfortable with her white Scottish mother and her African American dad. I bet Megz throws darts at her photo.
Fairy Crocodile said…
@ WBBM

I think royals have lost control over the situation. Their pathetic bleating that Harry is a private person doesn't hold water, and everybody can see that. He retains his titles, his place in succession, his patronage,the HRH and even his royal coat of arms.

The whole world is laughing at the British Royal Family. They spent millions on a grifter and she is also using them for herself after shitting all over them - and they are powerless to stop her.The only one who has the guts to distance himself is Wills.
xxxxx said…
Maneki Neko said...
Megalo preaches about voting but this comment from the DM is interesting. I'm not on Twitter but perhaps some Nutties on Twitter could find out if interested;

SmugSkidMarkle, Smirkleville, United States, 4 hours ago

There's a document circulating around Twitter right now that shows what years Smirkle & her mother voted. Apparently there are companies that mine that kind of data. It just shows the years they voted, but not who the candidate was or what party affiliation they held. Smirk & Doria weren't regular voters by any stretch of the imagination...especially since sanctimonious Ms Thang ,said you don't exist if you don't vote.


I like the Ms. Thang name, the Gruesomes Marvelously Mudslide Mansioned, and me vote is in for this. (In USA)
Fairy. Absolutely. It is clear that Harry can do and say whatever he pleases and there will be no penalty. This latest outburst could have serious repercussions for the UK and therefore every UK citizen on whose largesse the RF depends. It is now apparent that the Firm is placed ahead of the greater good of the British citizen. Surely even the most ardent monarchist must now question the RF's commitment to anyone but those on the inside. Such blatant self-interest.
Maneki Neko said…
@WBBM

Even if she wanted British citizenship, would she be allowed it?
Categorically no. She resided in the UK for only two years and she is currently residing in the US. She doesn't need a language test
as she is a US citizen but she certainly needs to pass the Life in the UK test - and she'd have zero chance of passing. In any case, why would she want to be a British citizen?
--------------------
@Sandie

Meghan's appearance on that talent show ...

What I found worse was the video where they're on a bench. Has anybody noticed her cheeks? She looks like a chipmunk. Too much fillers.





Maneki. Funny. Well, she has to store Harry's nuts somewhere.
Fifi LaRue said…
Wealthy men should not be over-estimated for their ability to spot a grifter. One only needs to observe Jeff Bezos, who threw over his classy, educated, and thoughtful wife for a woman with over-inflated lips, and multiple cosmetic surgeries, and who dumped at least four husbands in succession for the next one.
Carrie said…
If Prince Harry, and his wife, had come out in support of the Republican Party using Royal titles there’d an almighty free-for-all row about foreign interference (not just mild criticism) - they’d be toast and everyone knows that. But as they’re singing for the democrats, and politics is about as low as it can get right now, they’re not only being allowed to get away with it they’re being actively enabled in some quarters precisely because of those titles as that is all they have to offer. A real scandal imo. FWIW I’m a Dem supporter but I don’t agree with this.
SwampWoman said…

Blogger holly said...
@Sandie

Good point about the set up. So staged. I could read two of the book titles. Women and Black Godfather. Wonder why Harry wasn't with her.


I've been idly wondering for awhile whether they are actually living "together" versus living together separately, or if he just commutes from elsewhere for the occasional appearance. It would appear that he left the UK with just the clothes on his back and hasn't acquired anything personally meaningful with which to place in his allotted space. It is as though he's been hit by a natural disaster and has nothing left of his own (make of that what you will).
Carrie. We do know how much they love all things Russian so maybe meddling in elections was next on the to-do list.

Swamp woman. Good point. Maybe they are living apart, hence the socially distanced bench appearance.
Natalier said…
I can't believe that she turned the full of character spanish style house into a generic all white room with the mandatory rustic cushion covers and jars/candle holders/candlebra yada yada. It is a replica of that colourless generic looking rented house she had in Toronto. Are Harry's balls inside the 2 jars next to her showcase books? The gent Archie in the show, I don't think he knows who she is or they would have shown his reaction after watching her video.
SwampWoman said…
Natalier said...
I can't believe that she turned the full of character spanish style house into a generic all white room with the mandatory rustic cushion covers and jars/candle holders/candlebra yada yada. It is a replica of that colourless generic looking rented house she had in Toronto. Are Harry's balls inside the 2 jars next to her showcase books? The gent Archie in the show, I don't think he knows who she is or they would have shown his reaction after watching her video.


I suppose she's spent a lot of time in hotel rooms so that must feel like home to her.
@Fairy Crocodile
Sadly, I have to agree with you. Not only does something need to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done.

HM & PC may be pinning their hopes on the trial dealing out some truth and justice, meaning Meghan M-W will spill her bile over the legal system, rather than them. If only it were to start next Wednesday, not over 3 months away on 11th January. ..

A lot could happen between now and then. We’ve got another round of infection to deal with before that, so who knows who’ll be left standing?

There’s much talk at the moment about the long-term effects of the virus, especially on those who required hospital treatment and youngsters are finding out the hard way that actions have consequences. There’s talk of `cancelling’ Christmas and university students not being allowed home, so perhaps that’ll fill the papers, rather than more Smirkle propaganda taking space.

When one thinks of the damage they’ve done already in the year’s grace they’ve been given, it’s hard to be optimistic. It’ll be a long 3months, 2 weeks and ?3 days.

Meghan’s progress has been like a game of Snakes and Ladders – so far she’s managed to land on the foot of some very big ladders, followed by a rapid ascent. On March 11th, God willing, she’ll put her toe on the head of a very large anaconda and slither down to the bottom of the board, near the square marked `Go’.
Swampwoman. Maybe one of the other rooms is decorated in a jaunty nautical style in homage to the yachting days. Got to go or my child will be waiting for me at school gates. This blog is too addictive.
Miggy said…
Good article by Aubrey Hansen.

Meghan Markle Is Way Out Of Her League Taking On Donald Trump

Meghan Markle & Prince Harry decided to speak up on the U.S. elections. President Trump welcomed the couple to the big leagues!


https://www.ccn.com/meghan-markle-donald-trump-out-of-her-league/
Whoops! I’ve just looked up Snakes and Ladders at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_Ladders

It’s fascinating account but no doubt we shall have to throw our boards away, along with those for Ludo and Chess, if we wish to `decolonise’ our games cupboards. All these pastimes originated in India so we’re guilty of cultural appropriation if we so much as rattle the dice cup or pick up a pawn.

Still, I like the idea that originally it was a morality game, with the symbolic risk of reincarnation as a lower form of life, if one fell to the bottom. Would anyone here like to hazard a guess what RMM-W might come back as? (Or should that be RMMM-W?)

Btw, I personally have never `colonised’ anything – surely the word should be `decolonialise’?
Artemisia19 said…
"It would not be anywhere quite as strange if she and Prince Harry had actually left their royal duties. If they hadn’t made media-friendly woke pronouncements about the legacy of colonization, but instead actively admitted that perhaps a clan of power-hungry inbred aristocrats shouldn’t still be clinging to power. Yet Harry and Meghan kinda-bailed-but-not-entirely, keeping their Duke and Duchess titles, even though going further doesn’t seem like it would have been much more of a burden. Harry was unlikely to ever be crowned king given the monarchy’s rules of succession. And they moved to southern California, where you don’t need a title to be royalty — just look at the Kardashians." --The Spectator.
abbyh said…

Fifi - Wealthy men should not be over-estimated for their ability to spot a grifter. One only needs to observe Jeff Bezos, who threw over his classy, educated, and thoughtful wife for a woman with over-inflated lips, and multiple cosmetic surgeries, and who dumped at least four husbands in succession for the next one.

Well, there was the PR that they had joined a helicopter club. I was thinking Jeff and his squeeze are also chopper pilots. I keep reading that they are looking for a place in LA. But I could be adding the wrong dots.

bench body language and spacing

What if they had some kind of row just before this and she let him know in no uncertain terms what her expectations were?

Years ago, ex and I were about to get our pictures taken by a friend (professional level) for the parents. As the knock happened, partner turned to me and blasted me sideways (can't remember what but it was so unexpected, so first time and only time I ever heard about this complaint) that it totally threw me off for the photos. Partner was fine when they opened the door and relaxed during the shoot. I was clearly off.
I would have loved to have seen her business skills tested as a candidate on `The Apprentice’, (UK or US) before Mr. Trump became POTUS, that is.

She would have made herself leader of `Team Revolution’ and made a bigger b*lls- up, even faster, than the dimmest, most self-regarding candidate we’ve ever seen. The Boardroom would have been a bloodbath as she defended herself against the charge that they had all told her that `Smashed-Avocado-on-Toast Chutney’ wouldn’t work but she refused to listen.

She wouldn’t even have made it to the dismal Bridge Café with the rest of Team revolution – Sir Alan would have chucked her out first.

She’d have been selected in the first place for sheer entertainment value as the goal of her `business plan’ was to become CEO of UK Inc. within 2 years, her cash flow being provided by the generous shareholders of the Firm.

Any suggestions as to how she would have coped with the standard tasks?
Nutty Flavor said…
New post: "Who does Meghan actually influence?"
Jdubya said…
I've been wondering about her application for citizenship. Is it still pending?
I found this info on obtaining citizenship

Am I eligible for British Citizenship by marriage?
In order to make your application, you must meet the following criteria:

You are 18 years-of-age or over at the time of your application
You demonstrate good character, which means you cannot have a criminal record
You have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK or have EEA permanent residence
You have not have broken any immigration laws, including overstaying any visa
You are able to speak English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic
You meet the residential qualifying period of three years
You are married to a British Citizen
During the application, you must be able to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the UK by passing the 'Life in the UK' test and meeting the English Language requirements.
Maneki Neko said…
@Jdubya

As I explained in an earlier post, MM does not meet the residency requirements. She has not taken, let alone passed, the Life in the UK test (we would have heard about it and she knows nothing about the UK). As a US citizen, she doesn't need a language test/evidence of knowledge of the English language.
Oldest Older 801 – 837 of 837

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids