The Royal Watcher on CBC Newsworld

Today I had the opportunity to be interviewed by Andrew Nichols on CBC Newsworld about Princes William and Harry and the Concert for Diana.



With Permission of CBC Newsworld. Thank you to Andrea at the CBC.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!

What if Diana had lived?

But had she lived through years more of controversial love affairs, marriages, more divorces...and the decline of her beauty, society would perhaps have grown cynical about its princess. Her funeral - in the year 2000 and something - might have been a minor and depressing event. As it was, through such a premature death, the aura she had magically generated in sixteen years remained untarnished, intact into the afterlife.

Diana, an English rose by Susan Maxwell Skinner & Anwar Hussein

A new book, called Lady D, by Isabelle Rivère and Caroline Babert, asks the question, What would Diana's life have been like had she lived?

Ultimately, I believe that this premise is an exercise in futility. What would have happened had King Edward VIII not abdicated, John F. Kennedy not been assassinated, or the catastrophe of September 11th not occurred. We'll never know, but life goes on. The death of Diana did happen. With the supposed 'spiral of self-destruction' she went through in her last summer, some might say it was inevitable.

In the year that marks the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, some will feel nostalgic, some will make a note of it, and many won't care. Had she lived it's more than likely that, over time, less and less people would have cared. Without the restraint of Princess Grace, the class of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, or the elegance of Princess Alexandra of Denmark (now Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg), Diana's life would have become somewhat sad over time. Despite paying lip-service to forgiving Prince Charles, the game of one-upmanship would have continued, with Diana pathetically trying to grab headlines in any way she could.

The tell-all books from the likes of Paul Burrell and Simone Simmons - no longer posthumous - would have been postponed. With the cachet of being an insider, Diana was much more valuable to them alive. But like Sarah, Duchess of York, Diana might have created her own cottage industry as a patron of various charities, a foundation in her name, a guest editor of fashion magazines, writing forwards for books or even writing a few books of her own.

It's nice to think that Diana was blossoming and it seems, coming into her own. She was steering two young men towards their destiny. While unlucky in love, the tide might have turned. Like Jacqueline Kennedy Onasis, had she chosen to return to private life, it might even have been possible to find happiness. The list of lives she could have touched, causes she could have highlighted, good she could have done is endless, and sad to think about.

Could Diana have changed the world? Could she have lived happily ever after?

Because of August 31, 1997, we'll never know.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

Like royal books? Visit Marilyn's Royal Bookstore!

Question: Is Prince Harry ready to rule?

Should Prince William not be able to fulfill his role as the King of England, what preparation has Prince Harry had that would qualify him to reign?

In the royal family, there is a precedent of the second son succeeding the throne. I'm sure there are lots of examples of this being so* but two men who immediately come to mind are King George V and his son, King George VI. Neither of these men expected, or likely anticipated that they would become kings.

The future King George V, Prince George, Duke of York, became heir to the throne after his older brother, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale died unexpectedly at the age of 28. Prince George had been pursuing a military career, which was regarded as the most suitable occupation for the second son. Prince Albert Victor, at the time of his death third-in-line for the throne, was to be married a month later to Princess May of Teck, but he died on January 14th, 1892. Prince George then became heir, and in time 'inherited' his brother's fiance, the future Queen Mary.

Unlike his future son, Prince Albert, King George V had plenty of time to adapt to his new role before he himself became king in 1910. His own father, King Edward VII, despite being the longest serving heir to the throne - 59 years, had little training himself, as his mother Queen Victoria didn't allow him access to her papers. Despite this, King Edward VII went on to become a successful monarch who gave his name to an era. During his reign, King Edward VII made certain that his son was well trained when the time came for him to succeed.

King George V had five sons and one daughter, Edward - Prince of Wales, Albert - Duke of York, Mary - Princess Royal, George - Duke of Kent, Henry - Duke of Gloucester, and John - who died as a child. Edward had been destined to be king from birth and he eventually would succeed the throne in 1936 upon the death of his father. However, Edward decided to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson and his brother, Albert - who was seen as a rather unlikely candidate for the throne, became King George VI in the same year (incidently 1936 is known as the year of three kings). King George VI wasn't nearly as well trained as his father had been but he eventually became a good king. As the father of the present Queen, he ensured that she had the best possible training for her future role.

While it's hard to ignore precedent, I doubt that Prince Harry would have the same type of training. Is he qualified? Yes - from the moment of his birth. There really isn't anything that defines what criteria makes a good monarch. You'd be hard pressed to find a career counsellor who could tell you. Should something unfortunate happen to William, hopefully Harry will have plenty of time to adapt to his new role. He could have no better instructor than his grandmother.

© Marilyn Braun 2007

* if anyone knows of other examples, feel free to comment.