For those of you old enough...

[sheworemellowyellow]

...was the Diana/Fergie thing as mental in the media and with the public as MN is mental about Meghan/Kate/everyone else these days?

I was a young teen and paid zero attention to the RF in the 80s. Accounting for a certain amount of frenzy due to the ease of posting on social media versus drumming up chat by way of in-person chatting, and also accounting for the near-total accessibility of online media especially tabloids, did people take these insanely fervently held anti/pro Diana/Fergie sides like they do with Meghan and Kate?

Just done one of my regular name-changes, I've had my arse handed to me on the RF forum plenty of times by the usual suspects. Have been busy with life for a while, just come back to this board and am open-mouthed by how sycophantic/defensive/accusatory/cynical some posts are. Trying to work out WHY people care so much! Is this new? Is this just the royal family wielding its influence? Was it always thus?

Not at all! I don't understand monarchy. This is my point. I can see for myself the unifying force it can have, and who wasn't moved by the scenes broadcast on TV at the time of HMQ's funeral. I think Charles is seriously underestimated for the work he's done over a lifetime in bringing minority voices into the mainstream; for his environmental protectionism; for the Prince's Trust work. He's also indulged in some highly questionable cash-for-titles stuff. Pre- the '80s and '90s, I don't have personal experience but I think HMQ was an example of family values, community spirit, stoicism, etc etc. I can see the value in all of this.

But equally, I don't understand why some people are so personally vested in individual personalities. Generally, young women (poor Charlotte). Not just vested - personally vested. These women impact random strangers' lives, over many many years, and they're completely unknown to them. Generally, it's not impacted for things like family values, community spirit, stoicism etc. It's impact on softer things like looks, family standing (married-in or born-to), scandal. This is what I'm grappling with. It's not anti-monarchy per se. I just don't see it happening with anyone else.

My original question was to do with whether either woman incited the kind of fervour that we see now.

That's not the question I took from your OP at all.

..was the Diana/Fergie thing as mental in the media and with the public as MN is mental about Meghan/Kate/everyone else these days?

and

did people take these insanely fervently held anti/pro Diana/Fergie sides like they do with Meghan and Kate?

were the questions I was attempting to answer.

My original question was to do with whether either woman incited the kind of fervour that we see now.

is rather different; obviously Diana - particularly her death - incited a great deal of fervour.

Yes.

but it seems to me that the '90s - Tony Blair, New Labour, a time of huge social and cultural democratisation (or at least re-balancing) - were pivotal for the RF,
Let's just ignore the illegal war shall we and what Boris Johnson, Brexit and Jacob Rees Mogg have to do with perceptions of Fergie and Diana God only knows. The RF carry on no matter what terrible politicians are in charge

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy
Here it is in a nutshell if you find monarchy hard to understand.

So from the first line of your OP about Diana and Sarah Ferguson and public perception of them we are supposed to infer your actual question is "I don't understand monarchy can someone explain?"

Okaaaaay.

When I've done chinny-reckoning I'd say that as a teen in that period, if you can't actually remember, then perhaps a memory check at the GP might be in order.

Btw, Tony Blair (the best leader the Conservative party ever had) was, and remains, a despicable lying egomaniac.

And I speak as a Labour voter. Always.

I thought Tony Blair was labour?

Tony Blair (the best leader the Conservative party ever had)

Well said 😂

It's like bronzey and goldy but it's made out of iron ...

Irony doesn't translate well on this board! , too much crazy ! 🤣

Sarcasm also seems to go down like a bucket of cat sick too!

"Many Commonwealth members are wanting out, Australia can be quite vocal at times about wanting to renounce its ties".

Not sure you're correct here. Australia have talked about removing the Monarch as head of state and becoming a Republic, but they've never spoken of leaving the Commonwealth.

There are 54 countries in the Commonwealth, only 15 of whom are Commonwealth realms & have the King as Head of State. The rest are independent countries who voluntarily joined.

It's as MrsFinkelstein said re Australia

Much talk removing Charles as HoS and becoming a republic.

But no talk about leaving the Commonwealth.

Sarah was eviscerated in the press and compared negatively to Diana. But it was not as bad as now as there was no social media. And stories were not made up about Sarah. She basically got attacked for how she looked and the things she actually did e.g. trying to sell access to Andrew for money. It was filmed.
So in that sense it was different as she did actually do something pretty major wrong unlike Kate or Meghan.

whoops, need to amend the 'no talk of leaving the commonwealth' (which is in regards to majority of Parliamentary Minister who favour a republic).

to: there are some discussions, but it seems to be mostly in regards to the British Monarch being head of the Commonwealth. An apology from Charles is being requested by many First Nations People of Australia.

Your seriously comparing the two?

So appearing on tacky chat shows moaning about your in laws and telling stories of which several are proved to be untrue is not doing something majorly wrong? Sarah also appeared on Oprah and wrote her autobiography but she was respectful of her former in laws.

Diana and Fergie were not in competition at all. People could love, like or dislike or be indifferent to both at the same time. Coverage and gossip was all newspaper and magazine driven as there was no social media or internet.
I was not a monarchist and unenthusiastic about Charles and Di's Wedding (but did watch it and grateful for the public holiday) but very sad when she died.
I now agree with my Mum who always said a Constitutional Monarchy is better than a boring corrupt politician. No point abolishing something unique and special.

'Princess Anne who got relatively little flack"
I am old enough to remember it being fascinating that Princess Anne would deign to go on a Children's TV programme 'Blue Peter' and go away 'on safari' I think with the presenter Valerie Singleton. However as a young woman I remember her being a bit defiant and one time getting a lot of press flack for getting caught speeding on the motorway. Once she married she seemed to calm down a lot and is now seen as a national treasure of course.

Charles was on a children's programme too. He read his book "The Old Man of Lochnagar" on Jackanory. Kate has recently read the cBeebies bedtime story.

Diana could do nothing wrong and Sarah could do nothing right. is how I recall it.

Diana is remembered very differently now to how she was seen back then.

I was 11when they married and thought she was amazing by the time she passed I was expecting my first child and I viewed her very differently.

So true.

I remember there being a couple of times they swapped clothes. Now obviously they had access to someone to alter them but you can't alter a 10 to a 16.

I think all the Royals got bad press at some point. Princess Margaret certainly did, as she was in the tabloids a fair bit with her trips to Mystique and her affair with Roddy Llewelyn, plus her disastrous marriage to Tony Armstrong Jones. Although in her younger years she was purported as being very glam and attending loads of parties. I only vaguely remember her as was a child.
As others have said, there was no team Diana/Fergie. Tabloids were vile to Fergie about her weight, dress sense. She never really hit back and just got on with it, but no SM back then, or would have been worse.

There was definitely no picking a side because for most of that period they were good friends. Even when they fell out, it wasn’t discussed much. The press were awful to Fergie but I don’t think you would have found the general public sharing that view. I felt so sorry for her with the Duchess of pork headline. Things changed after the toe sucking pics. That was Fergie’s own doing.

I like Princess Anne. She has had a lot of firsts. First British royal female to go to school (got 3 A levels), first member of the royal family to compete at the Olympics and first senior royal to be convicted of a criminal offence (dangerous, out of control dogs).