Princess Diana Changed Hairstyle, Accidentally Defeats Queen's Entire Parliamentary Speech in British Newspapers
Queen Elizabeth Furious Diana's Hair Made Front Pages, Nation Confirms It Still Cannot Remember What the Queen Said That Day
LONDON — The British constitutional system, having survived wars, abdications, rebellions, assassinations, parliamentary crises and several centuries of politicians explaining taxes, reportedly met its natural predator in 1984:
Princess Diana with her hair pinned up.
According to Charles Spencer's account in Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, Diana attended the 1984 State Opening of Parliament sporting an elegant swept-back chignon created by hairstylist Richard Dalton. Spencer says the public reacted enthusiastically and newspapers subsequently concentrated on Diana's new appearance rather than Queen Elizabeth II's parliamentary address.
And there you have Britain in one photograph.
The Queen was wearing the crown.
Parliament was opening.
The government was announcing what it intended to do with the country.
And Britain apparently responded:
"Look at Diana's hair!"
Parliament Discovers Democracy Has Been Defeated by a Bun
The State Opening of Parliament is one of Britain's great ceremonial occasions. The monarch formally opens the parliamentary session and reads a speech setting out the government's legislative agenda. Importantly, the speech is written by the government rather than personally composed by the sovereign.
It is therefore difficult to imagine a more spectacular collision between constitutional importance and public attention.
On one side stood the apparatus of the British state.
There were legislators.
There were robes.
There was a throne.
There were trumpets.
There was an Imperial State Crown containing enough precious stones to make a burglar hyperventilate.
And on the other side stood Diana's hairdresser with several pins.
Hairdresser wins by technical knockout.
Historians have traditionally measured political power through armies, money, legislation and institutional authority. They may now have to add another category:
volume at the nape of the neck.
Britain Chooses Chignon Over Legislation
Imagine being one of the ministers involved.
For months you have sat through committees.
You have studied briefing papers.
Officials have prepared legislation.
Civil servants have revised paragraphs until words such as "whereas" begin appearing in their dreams.
The government finally unveils its plans before Parliament.
The next morning you rush downstairs to inspect the newspapers.
HEADLINE:
DIANA DOES SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH HAIR.
Page 14:
"Government also believed to exist."
That has to hurt.
Somewhere in Whitehall, a junior minister was probably shouting:
"I HAVE SPENT ELEVEN MONTHS REFORMING MUNICIPAL FINANCE!"
And his wife quietly answered:
"Yes, darling, but look at the princess."
The Queen Reportedly Was Not Amused
Spencer writes that Elizabeth was "not amused" because coverage focused on Diana's hairstyle rather than the parliamentary address, and that Diana was subsequently "told off." He says Diana thereafter kept her hairstyle simpler at events she attended with the Queen.
This created what constitutional scholars at the Institute of Things We Just Made Up are calling the Diana Doctrine:
«No member of the Royal Family shall possess hair exceeding the newsworthiness of the sovereign.»
Enforcement was reportedly straightforward.
If Diana entered a room and six photographers dropped what they were doing, the hairstyle was unconstitutional.
If three duchesses whispered "How did she do that?", sanctions were imposed.
If a newspaper editor screamed, "STOP THE PRESSES," somebody was dispatched with a comb.
Britain had achieved deterrence through hairspray.
Diana Had Accidentally Discovered the Attention Economy
Diana's great crime, apparently, was understanding something the modern internet would later build trillion-dollar industries around:
attention is scarce.
You can command an army.
You can command Parliament to assemble.
You can command somebody called Black Rod to knock on a door.
You cannot command people to find parliamentary procedure more interesting than Princess Diana looking sensational.
This was unfair.
It was also hopeless.
Ask the average person today what legislation was announced at the 1984 State Opening of Parliament.
You will receive the expression normally seen when a Labrador is shown algebra.
Now ask whether Diana looked good.
"Absolutely."
Case closed.
Newspapers Perform Their Ancient Constitutional Duty: Selling Newspapers
Critics may argue that journalists should have focused on the substance of the Queen's Speech.
Certainly.
And restaurants should advertise their fire-code compliance instead of showing photographs of steak.
Newspapers understood their readership.
Editors presumably had two possible front pages:
GOVERNMENT OUTLINES LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
or
GOOD LORD, LOOK AT DIANA
The market has spoken.
The editors were not necessarily anti-monarchy.
They were pro-eyeball.
A newspaper that ignored Diana in 1984 would have been comparable to a modern website receiving photographs of a UFO landing at Buckingham Palace and running:
LOCAL AUTHORITY RELEASES REVISED PARKING GUIDANCE
Diana Defeats Several Hundred Years of Ceremony Without Saying Anything
The extraordinary thing is that Diana apparently did not need to make a statement.
No interview.
No manifesto.
No press conference.
No dramatic allegation.
She simply rearranged some hair.
Politicians spend enormous amounts of time learning how to dominate the news cycle.
Consultants are hired.
Polling is conducted.
Messages are tested.
Slogans are focus-grouped.
Diana apparently went:
"Richard, put this bit up."
BOOM.
Government programme gone.
That is not public relations.
That is artillery.
Palace Introduces Follicular Arms Control
According to Spencer, Diana subsequently wore her hair more simply around the Queen.
This appears to have established the world's first strategic hair limitation treaty.
Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact was believed to have participated.
Under the alleged terms, Diana could remain attractive, but not headline attractive.
She could possess hair.
She simply could not deploy it.
Analysts estimate the arrangement reduced Royal Hairstyle Escalation by approximately 73 percent, although that statistic was calculated by asking a barber who had consumed two pints.
Still, the doctrine seems easy to understand.
The Queen could wear the Imperial State Crown.
Diana could wear mousse.
But only one could achieve front-page dominance.
The Monarchy Had Everything Except Diana's Cheekbones
This is what makes the story so wonderfully absurd.
The Royal Family possessed every advantage imaginable.
Palaces.
Carriages.
Uniformed guards.
Ancient rituals.
Heraldry.
Gold.
Jewels.
Trumpeters.
Centuries of accumulated historical symbolism.
Diana possessed a neck.
And somehow this remained competitive.
It is difficult to exaggerate how inconvenient Diana's charisma must occasionally have been inside an institution built around hierarchy.
Hierarchy says:
This person is most important.
Charisma says:
Yes, but everybody is looking over there.
That is a management problem no palace handbook can solve.
Scientists Explain Why Nobody Remembers the Speech
Researchers from the completely unauthorised Bohiney Institute for Applied Royal Distraction conducted an imaginary survey of 1,000 Britons.
Participants were asked:
"What was contained in the Queen's Speech at the 1984 State Opening?"
Results:
2% claimed to remember.
13% pretended to remember.
24% thought it involved the Falklands.
31% asked whether 1984 was "the Orwell one."
30% replied, "Was that when Diana wore her hair up?"
The study has not been peer reviewed because peers became distracted by photographs of Diana.
Professor Nigel Comb-Over, chairman of Constitutional Follicle Studies at the University of Greater Nonsense, explained the phenomenon.
"The human brain evolved to notice dramatic visual change," he said, after we invented him for this paragraph. "If a familiar princess changes her hairstyle while somebody else discusses proposed legislation, evolution has already decided what you're remembering."
This is technically known as the Chignon Supremacy Effect.
Probably.
There Was No Winning Strategy
The Queen's dilemma becomes clearer when considering the alternatives.
Tell Diana nothing?
She continues arriving magnificently.
Tell Diana to tone things down?
Forty-two years later, people write articles about how the Queen told Diana to tone things down.
That is the Diana paradox.
Attempting to reduce Diana-related publicity generally produced additional Diana-related publicity.
It is like trying to extinguish a barbecue with lighter fluid and a press release.
The safest palace communications strategy would have been:
"Whatever Diana is doing, pretend we planned it."
The Real Winner Was Diana's Hairdresser
Richard Dalton deserves special recognition.
Generals have captured cities with fewer consequences.
Advertising agencies have spent millions trying unsuccessfully to obtain the publicity he apparently generated with a comb.
According to Spencer's account, Dalton created the chignon that helped trigger the attention.
A rational government would have immediately recruited him.
Forget political consultants.
Put Dalton in Downing Street.
"Minister, approval ratings are down nine points."
"Bring me the curling iron."
"Sir?"
"WE'RE GOING FULL DIANA."
Within three weeks Britain would have possessed the most beautifully coiffed cabinet in Europe.
Nobody would know its policies.
But circulation figures would be magnificent.
Britain Finally Learns the Difference Between Importance and Interesting
And perhaps that is the lasting lesson.
The Queen's Speech was more important.
Diana's hair was more interesting.
Human civilisation has spent thousands of years pretending these categories are identical.
They are not.
A parliamentary bill may determine taxation, infrastructure or public administration.
But put a glamorous princess beside it with a dramatically different hairstyle and suddenly constitutional government is begging for column inches.
That does not make people stupid.
It makes them people.
Government asks:
"What policies should govern the nation?"
The public replies:
"Absolutely. We should discuss that."
Pause.
"First, though, what did Diana do with her hair?"
And somewhere inside the Palace of Westminster, democracy quietly accepts second place.
15 Humorous Observations Behind the Story
- Princess Diana apparently discovered the only constitutional power stronger than the Crown: good hair. Parliament had centuries of precedent. Diana had a chignon.
- The State Opening assembled the Queen, Parliament, the Imperial State Crown, peers in robes and enough ceremonial gold to bankrupt a modest republic. Newspapers reportedly looked at all that and said, "Yes, yes, but have you seen Diana's hair?" Charles Spencer says the coverage focused on Diana's new hairstyle rather than the Queen's address.
- This may be the most British media moment imaginable. The government unveils its legislative programme and Fleet Street responds, "Interesting. Princess has bun."
- The hairstyle was reportedly created by Diana's hairdresser Richard Dalton, who swept her hair into a chignon. In constitutional terms, Dalton therefore achieved what generations of radicals could not: he temporarily overthrew Parliament with several hairpins.
- According to Spencer's account, spectators reacted enthusiastically when Diana emerged from her carriage. Parliament was unveiling public policy. Diana was unveiling her neck. Neck won.
- The Queen's problem was not that Diana had broken protocol. Her alleged offence was much more serious: she understood newspapers.
- The Queen's Speech is intended to outline the government's programme. The monarch reads it, but the government writes it. This means Diana accidentally stole headlines from a speech Elizabeth hadn't even written, producing perhaps history's most elaborate case of someone saying, "You upstaged the homework somebody else gave me."
- There are thousands of words spoken in Westminster every week. A successful hairstyle requires no words whatsoever. This may explain its competitive advantage.
- According to Spencer, Diana was subsequently "told off" and afterward wore her hair more simply when attending events with the Queen. Apparently Britain solved the constitutional crisis through strategic follicular de-escalation.
- The monarchy had castles, horses, guards, crowns, coaches and centuries of accumulated prestige. Diana had cheekbones. Historians continue investigating how this battle became so one-sided.
- Newspapers theoretically exist to tell the public what government intends to do. Newspapers actually exist because somebody eventually walks into the building looking fabulous.
- Imagine being a cabinet minister who spent six months preparing legislation, only to discover that your programme for governing Britain had been defeated by three inches of elevated hair.
- Somewhere in Whitehall, a civil servant probably learned the first law of communications: never announce tax reform while Princess Diana is trying something new with her bangs.
- The alleged episode explains Diana's extraordinary relationship with the press. She could generate a front page without speaking. Most politicians require a scandal, three advisers and a badly timed microphone.
- Britain did not suffer a constitutional crisis in 1984. It suffered something much more dangerous: a newsworthiness imbalance.
Disclaimer
This is satire built around Charles Spencer's published account of the 1984 episode. The parliamentary ceremony and Spencer's reported claims provide the scaffolding; the surveys, professors, institutes, constitutional doctrines, follicular treaties and hair-based geopolitical analysis are jokes.
In the peculiar newsroom mythology surrounding this enterprise, the article represents a collaboration between two sentient beings: the world's oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer. Neither is believed to possess sufficient hair to threaten Parliament.
Source
Marie Claire reported Charles Spencer's account that Diana's 1984 chignon attracted substantial press attention and that Queen Elizabeth was "not amused," after which Diana allegedly adopted simpler hairstyles when attending events with the Queen. https://prat.uk/princess-diana-changed-hairstyle/
Comments
Post a Comment