Did deaths such as Princess Diana’s and the extraordinary spate of public grief that followed it signal a national ‘togetherness’ and communal spirit? Or was this apparent national spirit a product of the press, at the cost of a disturbing suppression of disagrees?
When a tragedy affects a large number of people, it tends to overcome local resources. In events such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the funeral of Princess Diana, and the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001, the media serve to create a sense of community at local, national, and global levels. We may identify with Princess Diana as a public figure, because her live was so public and shared her experiences with all kind of people. The consequence resulting from a tragic event increase so this event will perceived, as a public tragedy, and lead to significant and structural changes in security systems.
Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales, was born in 1 July 1961 in Sandringham, United Kingdom and died in August 31, 1997 in Paris, France.
Marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana:
Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. This event is broadcast worldwide live on television. It’s the first royal wedding of the era of mass media, with the presence of 750 million numbers of viewers who followed the ceremony. They had two sons and then they divorced in 1996 because Prince Charles didn’t stop his relationship with Camilla that started before he met Diana, in 1970.
Death of Lady Di:
Her companion Dodi al-Fayed, changed plan and asks Henri Paul, the driver, to drive very fast and run away from the paparazzi that were following them in motorcycles and cars. When arriving in the Alma tunnel, Henri Paul suddenly loses control of his vehicle and crashed into the 13th pillar of the tunnel. Dodi and Paul died on the spot, Diana and her bodyguards were seriously injured. She was the victim of a car accident in 31 August 1997 and died in the Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière in Paris.
Funeral of Princess Diana:
September 6, 1997, two million people took to the streets of London to pay their last respects to the late Princess Diana and three billion people attended the ceremony on television. More than hundreds bouquets of flowers were placed in front of his former London home at Kensington Palace and the audience threw flowers to the funeral procession passing throughout his career.
Diana remains an extremely popular media figure and captures the ambiguity seen as key to the popular appeal of both celebrities with her ghostly presence continuing to haunt the royals and generate sales and audiences. She was both like us and not like us, not ‘too royal’ and not ‘too ordinary’. Although, the level to which the royal family has been changed from those dark days of September 1997, while the media canonization of Diana has been replaced by portrayals of a flawed, troubled, even hysterical woman.
The death of Princess Diana was a major tragedy for so many people and for other it was said but it didn’t affect their life. The media reaction to her death was extraordinary which the concerns of national and international media were united. It has been argued that with regard to such ‘media events’, the public has learned their reaction from media to express their feelings. Media events involving royalty are often seen to be particularly integrative social ceremony, as the special case of Diana, where her marriage and her funeral, as we see in these two images, two royal events where attended by a big number of people. We see the same movement in both images, the entrance of the couple in the middle of the church surrounding with a big number of people for her wedding, and the entrance of the company holding her temple also in the middle of the road surrounding by a big number of people. All the people that attend both events knows her as have heard her name not because she was a princess but she ‘touched hearts with her kindness, her compassion, her mixing with just ordinary people in everyday life’. Diana was not just accessible; she was tangible in the popular imagination.