For number of reasons one being that Paris Hilton who is born the to the wealthy Hilton Hotel Empire is wealthy but she was not born of blue blood nature. That is one of the pre-emptive things that Buckingham Palce holds quite dear, is it's lineage in the family tree. After all, all that belive in the aristocrcy of the Royal Family and historians alike, have all held thier beliefs in order of believing that the Royal Family has held high it's monarchy in spite of war, in spite of intense family fueds, divorce,religion,and power, never mind the wealth and palaces throughout Europe that have inspired history itself the world over.

The Royal family with Queen Elizabeth at the helm, is an icon that revolve many a door with her grace and candor and ability

to rule over her vast peoples. She would look only a second for public scrutiny for the sake of her childrens happiness. Prince Charles, against the best interest of his own future, fell in love with what could only be described as a young princess in the making. Who history would duly see to, that he would become her Prince, thus making her the Princess she was born to become.

In the view of what makes a Princess, well in the childlike fairy tale way, she must be fair and show great grace and abiity to want to truly never look at the face of evil, or wrong doers for nothing more than ignorance. She must be willing to champion for causes that others might like to point fingers at not attempting to cause much more than hurt, or insult. The princess knows that her sense of innocence is like an odd potion, intoxiable for those who drink, and like poision for those that despise.

Diana has a driver and gets killed.

Irony is an engine block crushing your head.

seriously? people really ask that?

i don't think paris hilton has enough class to rate as today's roxanne pulitzer.

.......would be savaged by the tabloids. Brown says that Diana's son should not marry a pretty girl like that one girl he likes and instead marry a dowdy little thing, and then that dowdy girl will be left in peace. How untrue that seems. She would be torn apart for her lack of style and frumpitude.

I can see similarities between Ms. Hilton and Princess Diana. Granted, it is most certainly *not* the person in the center of the whirl, but in both cases there is an attractive wealthy woman that some paparazzi make an income from photographing. There is a curious and entranced public who buy the photos published in the magazines that pay the paparazzi. In both cases, these women have on occasion sought out that media attention and then found it to be a wild dog and not a tame pet.

Also in both cases (and I would add Brittany here too) there is so much attention that there isn't room for the kind of grieving and healing most of us do in private. So there are these periods of craziness, which have to be amplified by seeing yourself going crazy on TV or on the cover of a tabloid.

And a final distinction. Princess Diana is dead. The record is finished on her life actions. These other young women still have a chance to become really unique and humane human beings. Let's not write them off as incapable of that.

What is "loomin"? A new slang term I am obviously not familiar with, or is it a cooloquial version of "aluminum"?

...but let me say it anyway: Prince William should marry someone like his ex-Aunt Fergie. So much more "real," aproachable and genuinely likeable than Mum. (And when she was young and irresponsible, yes, she was young and irresponsible.)

Neither will have any effect, good or bad, on my life. Diana was part of the royal family of England, not sure that matters anymore(since WWII?) except for tabloid coverage, which is about what made Paris. Just now the MSM is tabloid. Diana did nice things, great, so do many people at great cost and little fanfare.

"Being Princess of Wales even post-Diana is almost a fate worse than death."

oh, I don't know. Death's pretty bad.

How come Tina Brown doesn't have a caricature like the rest of the Salon bloggers?

Just doesn't seem right somehow.

By the way, I never responded to the email asking why I didn't renew my subscription. Well, this kind of stuff is why. That, and Camille Paglia. I don't really mind trash, actually. I just don't want to pay for it.

although this is hardly "unique" in the history of celebrity and/or self-created cults.

If this question gets asked often, it sounds as if Diana's legacy has suffered from revelations as to JUST how MANPULATIVE Diana was. In contrast, Hilton's ambitious use of the press appears pointless, highlighting her "shamelessness" and profound shallowness, It's a mystery. I'm not sure that Diana ever held a political opinion but as far as I'm aware, Hilton has no "cause", trivial or real. Hilton has not even married or spawned and I'm unaware of her ever being employed at anywhere near the level of responsibility as a childcare worker.

I can understand people who like and/or admire Diana to be baffled at the comparison, but it's hard to argue with apparent perception that both blondes are using the media to create a life, pretty much out of "whole cloth," to exploit shamelessly -- to flaunt it -- to become bigger, to "matter."

For some reason I was awake and had the TV on in the wee hours that Diana's accident was reported in the USA -- first reports were that she had survived but was injured, had been seen walking around at the crash site but the Dodi Fayed had been killed.

I recall as first feeling sad for her and wondered if she could/would survive his death. Then I realized it would be "all over the papers" endlessly, her tragedy, her courage, and I shuddered. About an hour later it was announced that previous reports were in error and Diana had been died almost immediately. I am not happy to admit that I felt I had been given a reprieve -- not only for the immediate tragedy -- but for what looked likely to be a lifetime of disappointments, tragedies, and quite possibly worse.