A number of old articles about Diana have been resurfacing, and what is relevant about
this is that they are not flattering, at all.
And as usual, one has to wonder who benefits from this narrative popping out, and the answer
might be quite shocking this time.
Welcome back, my body language buddies!
my name is Jesús Enrique Rosas, I'm the Body Language Guy, and it would be great if you
join us by just liking this video, subscribing and hitting that bell! let's get down to it!
Diana, Princess of Wales, is a delicate topic.
She's a personality that achieved legendary status and one of the reasons is her tragic
demise.
Way too soon.
And at the same time, that's one of the reasons talking about her is so difficult sometimes,
because a person that is no longer here cannot defend herself, so a lot of what happened
with their life back then, it's subject to speculation.
And speculation can go both ways.
It could be really good or really bad depending on the optics.
And articles like this one on the Daily Mail can be really hard to digest, especially because
Diana cannot contest those allegations.
I'm not gonna repeat the content of the article here, but all that I can say is that it portrays
a mentally unstable person, quite literally from the moment she got engaged with Charles.
Again, most of this is allegedly, but I would love to think that this kind of words, allegedly,
actually mean something in the psyche of the public, when in fact they don't.
And the problem with figures that achieve legendary status like Diana, is that they
are ripe for any kind of versions or novelizations of their story.
This is important to grasp.
A novelization is when you grab a 'real life story', and then adapt it for a series, or
a show, or a movie, or a book.
You can claim that is based on real events, but as an author there's some leeway that
you can have to tell the story in a more engaging manner.
And by 'engaging' it must be in a way that appeals to general audiences.
Again, this can be for good or for bad.
Maybe you remember Will Smith as Chris Gardner in the Pursuit of Happyness.
That was loosely based on a real life story.
But the Chris Gardner you saw on screen was much more vanilla than the real deal.
Let's just say that the actual person was much more complex in terms of ethics.
Sometimes, the appeal is made by changing the public's perception of certain real life
person.
Like Tarantino's interpretation of Bruce Lee in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
Lee was portrayed as arrogant and cocky, which deviates of our usual perception of him at
that age.
Now, what about Diana?
In terms of novelizations, I think no other show in the last ten years has had the impact
of Netflix's The Crown.
The problem is, again, that this is an extremely loose interpretation that even includes supposed
intimate conversations that most probably didn't happen.
Those fictional dialogs and interactions are crafted by the writers to flesh out the characters
as how the audience already thinks of them.
And this is common when you're creating any kind of historic biopic.
Most people, the general audiences, are not that interested on you being absolutely precise
and truthful in your research.
So, the writers just fill in the gaps with fictional dialogues and interacions that could
be enticing to the public.
Now you see the main problem.
The vast majority of the people that watches shows like The Crown, take them at face value.
Because, precisely, you're watching a show not to verify if what you're seeing actually
happened or is absolutely loyal to official records.
You're watching a show just for entertainment.
I don't have hard numbers, but I'm pretty sure that more than 90 percent of the viewers
of The Crown really think that what they are watching, actually happened, word by word.
Even if you asked them, do you understand that this is a novelization, right?
that a good chunk of these conversations might never have happened, are you aware of that?
And they will answer, of course I know that!
But it's a normal impulse to just relax and assume that what you're watching is what actually
happened.
I just want to make a point about the power that a semi-fictional show has over public
opinion and public perception of Diana and the Royal Family.
It's much more relevant when you present the information as a supposedly well researched
article.
Because it will have even more weight in the perception of people.
Now, the question is: Who could benefit of swaying public perception of Diana by making
articles like this one, from 2014, to resurface?
It's a literal smear campaign.
Who could benefit from this?
And the first impulse you could have is to think about any nemesis, any figure that would
be the opposite of Diana.
And I know that as I said these words, you instantly thought of Camilla.
After all, she was part of the 'marriage of three' that Diana mentioned in the Martin
Bashir interview.
And it would be a real coincidende that these articles are resurfacing around the same day
that the Queen requested that Camilla should be acknowledged as Queen Consort when Charles
becomes King.
So, at first sight one could think that it was Buckingham Palace that is pushing these
articles, demeaning Diana, so by contrast they can present Camilla as more deserving
of the title.
This is a classic strategy on political campaigns, for example.
You smear the other candidate, the opponent, so YOUR candidate is seen as more virtuous.
But there is a big problem with the Buckingham Palace theory.
And it's Prince William.
William is more and more involved in high-level decisions alongside the Queen and Charles.
And there is absolutely no way he could have allowed for any kind of smear campaign on
his own mother.
He's been vocally against The Crown, against the Martin Bashir interview, against the Diana
musical and let's say he's not happy about the movie "Spencer" either.
And it's reported that he was OK with the Queen Consort title going to Camilla.
And let's be honest.
The Diana that appeared on that Martin Bashir interview spoke like she only cared about
her sons to be happy, and her ex husband to be a good king.
I think that if she was alive today, she couldn't care less about Camilla getting that title.
So, did those articles just resurface spontaneously, by some kind of algorythmical caprice in social
media channels?
Highly unlikely.
But there has to be someone that benefits from Diana being perceived as unstable.
And in fact...
this very article has another protagonist in it.
"Shocking new details of the poison that scarred Harry's childhood, by a top royal biographer".
There's two things here.
First, it almost doesn't mention William; it focuses on Harry.
Also, it establishes authority by claiming that this is from a Top Royal Biographer.
According to this article, Harry is broken, because his mother was broken.
Both emotionally and mentally unstable.
I mean, this is borderline bad taste.
But what is more concerning is that this somehow tries to explain any kind of erratic behavior
from Harry.
So, nobody can argue with the fact that articles like this only benefit and feed the victimhood
narrative that Harry has been pushing for many years, and especially in 2021.
But Diana being emotionally unstable is not something that is perceived in isolation.
There's always the catalyst belief that the Royal Family did this to her.
I'm sure William would disagree on many of those suppossed recollections, of his grandmother
being the perpetrator of an evil scheme.
And what a coincidence, that one of the strongest sources in recent times of those perceptions
of the Royal Family's influence on Diana, is The Crown.
Straight from Netflix... the ones that still have a contract with Harry to produce content,
so he still answers to them, and he has allowed them to do whatever they please with his mother's
image.
So, if he allows for Diana's story to be told by any company with enough money to produce
an entire show around the life of the royals, without protesting any portrayal of his own
mother, what do you think is his stance about these articles that smear her memory, and
at the same time give him a morbid free pass?
And he will also benefit from the public thinking that it's Buckingham Palace pushing these
articles.
Because most probably, that's the kind of narrative he's planning to put on his victim
memoirs.
I'm just going to leave you with a quote that always works.
Follow the money.
It will usually lead you to the answers you seek.
If you want to refine your observation skills, all you have to do is download my 100+ body
language tips, right in the description of this video.
My name is Jesús Enrique Rosas and it will always be a pleasure, my body language buddies!
Much Love, and Bliss.