The Enigma That Is Diana ~ Review of the Traveling Exhibit ‘Diana, a Celebration’

After Elvis Presley died the American, perhaps the world, market was flooded with everything Elvis in memory of his loss (most sold by tacky TV commercials that played in the afternoons and late at night).  ‘Saturday Night Live’ had a skit where Elvis’ jacket went on tour.  They lowered the jacket on the stage with a wire hanger and had it moving to Elvis greatest hits as if it were singing.   More than thirty years later, it has really gotten down to that hasn’t it?  Part of the appeal of going to Graceland is that you are stomping around in someone’s life whose early death has frozen our image of him.  Had Presley lived, instead of debating the thin Elvis versus the fat one, we would have debated other aspects and probably his significance in pop culture would have faded.  However the reality for those of us who have been to Graceland is that we look at his suits, particularly from his fat years, and note that he was much thinner fat then you would have first presumed.  I was there when the estate was still owned by Pricilla and Lisa and besides being strangely moved I was also amazed that many of the exhibits, particularly the ones containing his gold records, needed dusting (when I was last at the Smithsonian R2D2 also needed a squirt of Pledge).  I write all of this as preface for my experience with the traveling exhibit ‘Diana, a Celebration’ that is in Kansas City until mid-June when it will be shipped somewhere else.

 

                Probably the major selling point to this exhibit is that it contains several gowns that Diana wore (including her wedding dress) as a princess and afterwards.  Kansas City’s timing for the exhibit was pure luck, with the most recent royal wedding of Diana’s oldest son to Kate Middleton.  However scattered amongst the couture gowns were pieces of ephemera that at one time or another meant something to the then Diana Spencer.  My friend thought it made her life more relatable.  I thought wow, just when you don’t know what to do with that horrible portrait of your sister’s favorite childhood cat that was given to her by your grandmother as a birthday gift you are gifted the opportunity to send it along on a exhibit to thrill/horrify audiences – well, anything not to clutter up Althorp.

 

                And really, that was what a large part of the exhibit was, clutter from a woman’s life who is no longer with us.  That isn’t to suggest that overall it didn’t have value; although the word ‘clutter’ has a negative connotation.  The thing of it is I’m not a famous person and the bits of crap (just being honest) that I leave behind might not be cherished and will most likely end up in a landfill, while Diana’s horrible ceramic animal collection (featuring several bunnies with broken ears) are put under a glass case.  Shoot, I even had some of the same childhood books except I took care of mine as I pointed out to my friend, my Maurice Sendak Nutshell Library has four books (instead of Diana’s three) and book covers (unlike you know whose).

 

                Granted, several items that are now under protective glass in museums around the globe were once someone’s discards, however what makes Graceland and the Diana exhibits unique is that they celebrate/examine/conceptualize someone who the majority of ticket buying gawkers remember within their lifetime.  The same can’t be said about Abraham Lincoln, I can’t look at anything he may have owned and point to it while declaring to anyone within earshot that I once owned the same thing, but took better care of it.  Lincoln’s topcoat didn’t adorn its wearer during recent memorable history whereas Elvis’ jacket was have been worn during the debut of ‘Blue Suede Shoes’ and one of Princess Diana’s gowns was worn during the London premiere of ‘E.T.’ where the press first started talking about her anorexia.  I will also go so far to note that even if Honest Abe’s topcoat was the one he wore when giving the Gettysburg Address most people wouldn’t stop for more than thirty seconds to admire it and they definitely wouldn’t relate to it the same way I related to Diana’s Nutshell Library nor the breakfast glasses from which Presley drank his O.J. every morning.  Lincoln’s topcoat is history, Diana’s ‘How to Swim and Dive’ book is all about the emotion it invokes in the observer…in time the emotion will fade and then the book will be a historic artifact which will not only reveal a little tidbit about a Diana Spencer but also something about books for children printed in the late sixties.  

 

                The display was divided into Diana’s childhood, her wedding, her death, and then her dresses.  I imagine that her years with Prince Charles are under the stewardship of the British Royal family and not her brother, Charles Spencer, 9^th Earl Spencer who is responsible for the exhibit.  There were a few frocks from her time as a royal and not many artifacts from that time period and definitely not any jewels – we all know who her engagement ring went to.  (There was a tiara, but I think that was tied to the Spencer estate.)  Of course the biggest get of the exhibit is her wedding dress, which has a train as long as it looked on TV (25 feet).  Because of the recent wedding TLC had a few programs which dealt with the late princess and her 1980s defining Victorian inspired wedding gown.  One of the better shows was hosted by India Hicks (who hosted one season of ‘Top Design’ back in 2008).  She had been one of Diana’s young bridesmaids (she is Charles’ Goddaughter) and her mother had been a bridesmaid for Queen Elizabeth (both kept their bridesmaid’s gowns).  Hicks chatted with David Emanuel who along with his then wife Elizabeth designed Diana’s wedding dress.  Both he and she talked about how the older bridesmaid’s (the ones in their early teens) were supposed to fold Diana’s train almost as if it were a flag (you know, the making a triangle nut not as tight) however they were so rushed and flustered they basically shoved the train in the horse drawn carriage with the bride and groom and called it a day.  All of these little tidbits made the viewing of the actual gown even more interesting.  Other things of note were her shoes that were especially made for the occasion with hand beaded hearts.  She also had a matching umbrella in case it rained that day. 

 

                The exhibit had several films and slideshows going.  I had a brief discussion with one woman wondering why the quality of the wedding film was so bad.  It looked as if you were watching a degraded version of an old VHS tape. 

 

                For a reason which I’m guessing had to do with space in Kansas City the exhibit went right from Diana’s wedding to her death…and yes, that was a little off putting.  If you hadn’t gotten your fill of Elton John’s Diana version of ‘A Candle in the Wind’ when she actually died, you will when you go through the funeral room.  Since the exhibit is owned and managed in some degree by her brother, the Earl Spencer included the first draft of the speech he gave at her funeral where he appeared to have bitch slapped the royal family.  “Someone with a natural nobility who was classless and who proved in the last year that she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic.”  It really is a great speech however he said, “she came to visit me and my children…” and it bothers me he didn’t ‘write my children and me.’  It further frustrates me that he has worked as a journalist. 

 

                By the time I got through the room with all of the condolence books I was thinking that I may have been mistaken that there was a dress display included in this tour, however I happily turned the corner and there they were – decades old couture that in their prime appeared on the covers of ‘People’, ‘Vanity Fair’ and other publications.  Metaphorically it would have been the part of the exhibit where Elvis’ jacket would have sang that it just wanted to ‘(Let Me Be) Your Teddy Bear’.  And wouldn’t you know it, just like Elvis’ suits, up close Diana’s clothes didn’t look all that glamorous; except for the beaded evening dresses – now those were fantastic.  Despite the care that these garments probably receive, some of them looked worn.  The tartan dress for instance has a rough spot as if it a moth had been in the mood for Scottish food.  Further, I wondered if some of the colors on the frocks had faded or was it just the light from paparazzi camera flashes that made them so brilliant. 

 

                Of course it was sad to view the brief life on an unfettered fashion muse, which had been limited for years by royal protocol, briefly free to wear whatever she pleased be it short skirts that showed off her long legs or an off the rack ensemble she wore while directing world attention of the inhumanity of landmines.  You are left to wonder where this fashion icon humanitarian would have done next…and what she would have worn. 

               

                Afterward you exited into the gift store, which the woman over the phone told me was the only place people were allowed to take pictures.  Listen, I don’t mind so much not being able to take pictures of an exhibition, however the suggestion that I can take pictures in the souvenir shop afterwards is plain laughable.  However if I was so inclined to snap away I wouldn’t have wasted much space on my card.  It was just a wall of over-priced stuff that had little to do with the actual exhibit.  Since I decorate my refrigerator with magnets (sue me) the selection was two magnets both saying something about the Spencer ancestral home…like I give a flying ?????????ƒ?!  Really, you have one of the most photographed famous women who has lived in the last hundred years and that is the best you can do refrigerator magnet wise?  I went to JFK’s library depository museum in Dallas (Death Tour Two OH OH 4) and they had more glamorous magnets – just saying.  You would also think that they would have cards with Diana’s face or even an affordable booklet about objects in the exhibit, but no such luck.  There was a book about the Spencers that was $53.00.  Not only that, but if you wanted something you had to look in the display case and then go elsewhere to order it.  The experience was bizarre and I wanted to reorganize the whole thing.

 

                Seriously, refrigerator magnets, how hard can it be?

 

                Here is a listing of what I think is Diana’s legacy.  One, she will be known for several decades as Diana with some confusion as to her proper title.  Much like Cher and Madonna, we know they have last names but it doesn’t matter much.  In Diana’s case she was the People’s Princess who became even more so when it appeared that the royal family was out to screw with her, “she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic.” 

 

                Two, she saved the monarchy. 

 

                I believe much like Roosevelt saved American capitalism by instigating socialistic programs after greedy capitalists short changed the stock market; Diana saved the British monarchy by forcing it to change.  When she died there was no denying her popularity and what she meant to the British public (and the world for that matter) no matter what her proper title was.  She took an institution which boosted “never complain never explain” and pushed it to a modern era.  Although I don’t necessarily mean to slight Prince Charles, he has always come off as a bird contained in a gilded cage who if released would still not know what to do with himself.  His sons however seem of sturdier stock.  They seem destined for tasks that involve more than cutting ribbons and hosting stuffy state dinner functions.  They appear to be able to interact with the public in ways that the older royals cannot ergo the very thing that condemned them to be merely figureheads within a commonwealth that proclaims itself a monarchy.  For example, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge has lived without much a to do in Anglesey, often going to the local cinema and pub with his then girlfriend/fiancée now wife and because of this ease he seems to be able to perform his official royal duties with more pomp (in the past one got a vibe that the royal family at times felt resentful of having to perform their defined public duties).  I got the feeling that both William and Kate carefully thought about how they want to conduct themselves, which at this time appears to be as a unit more so than either of them being the ‘star attraction’ over the other.

 

                In many ways, I think that if there had not been a Princess Diana with all of her charm, charisma, and concern for others, along with her failings and flaws, there couldn’t have been a Kate Middleton; a woman who does not have the most posh of backgrounds and prior to marriage wasn’t defined by the status of her hymen, yet seems one of the most dignified young women now in the forefront of the world stage.  Together William and Kate appear to be couple who might be able to make inroads into actually having more political persuasion than the majority of monarchs have had since King George III lost his mental capabilities.

 

                I would recommend the exhibit if you are interested in recent history, pop culture or anything British if it comes to your town.  Unlike my friend, I wasn’t shocked by how relatable a person from the upper echelons of British society could be in comparison to myself – I think people are people are people; most of us just want to be valued for what we do and respected as individual and be rewarded as such by occasionally hanging out and not worrying what the rest of the world might think of us.  I think the exhibition showed only the shell of the woman known as the People’s Princess, but without the actual woman the clothes were just clothes.  It was one thing to see the outfit that Diana sported when touring land mines it is quite another to wonder what ever happened to that young woman in Angola, the one with the sweet face who wore a red shoe on her remaining leg.  It was the Diana who willing held the hand of an AIDS patient back when such things were considered risky and the woman with flaws that out-smarted the Palace whose spirit couldn’t be captured in a wall display. 

 

                If given the chance, I wouldn’t want to see the exhibit again.  I’m glad I went, but once was enough.  Diana’s legacy lives on as her remains are sequestered on an island within the Spencer estate.

 

 

 

              And Elvis’ jacket has left the building. 

          

 

Westerfield © 2011