We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The flame still burns. A quarter of a century has passed, yet often it feels as if she’s still with us – standing in the wings, perhaps, no longer centre-stage. But still there. Her son William wants it that way, Harry too. The world may have moved on and the horror of that fatal road crash now thankfully faded, but what remains is an enduring presence, unique in British history, made up in equal parts of glamour, humanity, warmth and nobility. There’ll never be anyone like her again.

Her image remains forever young – she was just 36 when she died and, some will argue, at the very zenith of physical beauty. She’d learned to harness the power of that to highlight the ills of the world – AIDS, landmines, homelessness, poverty.

And no doubt she’d be doing it still – now aged 61. The act would have been refined, slowed to a more measured pace, and utilising a world of social media which simply did not exist in her day.

It tempts the question: what would Diana be like, what would she be doing, if she were still with us?

The first thing, most would agree, is that she’d have ordered a ceasefire in the bitter war of the Waleses. The influence she wielded over William and Harry, as they themselves confirm, was profound.

And as a realist – even if no longer a Royal Highness – she would have seen the damage caused to the royal brand by the breakdown in relations between William and Harry and put a stop to it.

Prince Charles, as the boys’ father, has done his best over recent times to douse the flames, but his influence on both sons was never as great because, understandably, his role as future King came first, second and third. For Diana, her boys came first, first and first.

Reel back a bit to the start of Harry’s troubles. If Diana had still been around, it’s fair to assume that she would have talked to him long and hard about quitting the army, his spiritual home and the happiest experience of his life.

Perhaps it was her death when he was just 12 which triggered the need to find a close camaraderie, to replace the light which had gone out of his life. Army discipline and sense of purpose gave him a path which took him into the real world and away from the red carpets and courtly ways behind the palace railings, and for a time he truly was the People’s Prince. Some might argue that with his mother still around, Harry may have chosen a very different woman to be his wife. Certainly it’s safe to say that Diana and Meghan would not have seen eye to eye, for as the future King’s mother Diana had learned that you do not rock the boat; you do not disrespect the family which has opened doors and rewarded you – even if you have issues with individual members.

And with that difficulty removed it might be safe to hope that relations between William and Harry might be dialled back to the sunny pre-Meghan days when the two Wales brothers created a powerful image of future-generation royals.

William, who’s openly confessed to his lasting sense of loss, at least found comfort in his choice of bride, the former Kate Middleton – but how would Diana have got on with her new daughter-in-law?

In her time Diana was a world star, no question, but wayward with it – not the blameless soul who stared dark-eyed into Martin Bashir’s TV cameras, but a woman beset at times by bad temper and petty jealousies.

She was, after all, human. How would she have viewed a girl of un-aristocratic background who came out of nowhere and actually improved on her act – who exhibited no rancour, steered clear of controversy, wore her clothes with every bit as much style, and who captured the hearts, in her own quite different way, of the nation and the world?

Then there would be the question of what Diana was to be called. She was the Princess of Wales – one might say THE Princess of Wales, for all time.

Wisely, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, though technically now bearing that title of princess, avoided using it. But the day will come when Charles becomes King, Camilla becomes Queen, and William steps up to carry his father’s title. What would have happened then – because you can’t have two Princesses of Wales!

Royal historians I’ve spoken to agree that the most likely course of action would be to have created Diana a royal duchess – there are many vacant titles in the royal locker to be got out, dusted down, and given with a special investiture. However, Diana adored her title, and one wonders how hard it would have been for her to see another woman taking her name and her place in the spotlight.

But they would undoubtedly have bonded over the grandchildren Kate provided despite three difficult pregnancies. Diana had an instant connection with children and would have given Carole Middleton a run for her money as favourite granny.

There was talk, in her latter days, of Diana finding a new life abroad – in America, perhaps, where New York fell to its knees when she visited, or maybe even India.

Her life was driven by gusts of anticipation, but that upbringing of an English country lady would have reclaimed her eventually. Like that other world-stage icon Jackie Kennedy, she may have created a lifelong following, but would in the end need to retreat from the party circuit, make a quieter life for herself.

And where might she find that? Recently her brother, Earl Spencer, rebutted the claims that, after her divorce, he rejected Diana’s plea to have a house on his 13,000-acre Althorp estate. He revealed that he’d offered her Wormleighton Manor, the original seat of the Spencer family which dates back to Tudor times – no greater compliment could he pay her. Here, in the rolling Warwickshire countryside, she could enjoy all the peace and privacy she wanted.

And what about her ancient rival, Camilla? TV series like The Crown dwell on Diana’s hatred of the only woman who truly captured Charles’s heart, carefully avoiding the fact that, in her last days, Diana had reconciled herself to the loss of her husband and had – grudgingly perhaps – wished him luck with his future life.

It’s not to say she wouldn’t have enjoyed Camilla slipping on a banana-skin (which has not happened yet) but as the years went by – and, maybe, other loves came into her life – her attitude would have softened.

As she herself once said, you can’t hate somebody forever.

Would she have married again? I believe that would have been unlikely – her position as mother of the future king gave her a power and status she would not care to have diluted by taking another man’s name.

And, of course, the treasured title of Her Royal Highness – savagely stripped from her in the chaotic fallout after Andrew Morton’s book Diana – Her True Story was published – would undoubtedly have been restored to her by William as one of his first acts as King.

All this, of course, is what-if conjecture. We can have no idea if Diana would have eventually achieved her then-ambition of winning back the surgeon Hasnat Khan and moving to India. Some distinguished biographers have suggested she would have taken advantage of her meteoric rise to world superstardom to find some rich – and faithful – husband who would throw a protective wall around her, but not Dodi Fayed.

One thing is beyond doubt, however. Diana was a sharply-focused, media-savvy animal who knew the power of royalty and the need to preserve its magic.

She’d had her fingers burned by the Morton book, which many felt at the time did as much to damage her credibility as it did to Prince Charles. But she learned from that mistake and wouldn’t rock the boat again.

Maybe, had she lived longer, she would have time to reflect on the choices she made in her life. She was 16 when she met Charles and 20 when she married him. There were fewer than 20 meetings between the couple before she made her way up the aisle of St Paul’s Cathedral in July 1981.

That, by most peoples’ standards, is an insufficient bedrock on which to base a marriage – especially one that was to be lived out in public, and forever.

Diana knew, too, about the presence of Camilla in Charles’s life, of that there can be no question. Would she, by now, have managed to resolve these issues and possibly reapportion blame – would she be free by now of the hurt, and have found a more harmonious life?

The answer has to be yes. She was first and foremost a mother, and would have taken joy and comfort from the arrival of each and every one of her grandchildren.

In time she would move centre-stage in public life once again, as mother of the future king, and her true contribution to the nation re-evaluated. Instead, we have only the memories.

But the flame still burns.

Source: Read Full Article