This issue, dated March 17, 1997, was published after both royal marriages had imploded and both women were divorced. Diana would die in the car accident just five and 1/2 months later. I remember thinking at the time that the headline was a bit of a low blow against Sarah Ferguson and I still think so. As I've said here in the blog before, Fergie made some dumb mistakes but she was also thrown under the bus several times by various members of the royal family, including, according to Tina Brown in The Diana Chronicles, by Diana herself.
It turns out that Diana wasn't much of a friend to Sarah after all. Brown takes us back to 1992. Andrew Morton's bombshell book about Diana, titled Diana, Her True Story, was about to be published. There was another book in the works, however, by someone called "Lady Colin Campbell," that told some pretty unflattering tales about Diana. Here's what happened next:
Diana was thrown into a panic when she learned that Lady Colin Campbell’s tell-all book, Diana in Private, was due to come out shortly before Morton’s and might steal her thunder. At just the right moment, however, a story came along that blew the rival book off the front pages. On March 18, Morton and Richard Kay broke the news of the separation of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson as an exclusive in the Daily Mail. The story was ruinous for Fergie’s relations with the Palace. The Queen was personally infuriated by the leak, which later did not help Fergie’s financial negotiations. The Grey Men of the Palace were convinced the Duchess had handed out the information herself, accusing her of hiring a PR company to give it to the Mail.
Pretty
bad for Fergie, right? So what really happened? A few paragraphs later, Brown
tells us that [a]fter Diana’s death, Morton finally revealed that it was indeed
the Princess of Wales who had served up her erstwhile best friend to provide the
necessary press distraction. (From The Diana Chronicles, Anchor Books Mass
Market edition, May 2008, pages 390-391)
"The merry wives of Windsor"? Not really.
Thursday morning update: I'm not the only one who sees parallels between Kate & Meghan and Fergie & Di. From a new story at people.com:
With Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton set
to become sisters-in-law in just a matter of months, their newfound friendship
evokes memories of another iconic pair of royal pals: Princess Diana and Sarah,
Duchess of York (also known as Fergie).
Of course, there
are notable differences between Kate and Meghan and Sarah and Diana. Kate and
Meghan —both age 36 — are a decade older than Diana and Fergie were at the
start of their marriages. And former Suits star
Meghan she has had a far more established career than the three other women had
before their own royal marriages. But not since Diana and Fergie have two
sisters-in-law in the British royal family so captured the public imagination.
Sarah and Prince Andrew knew
each other throughout their childhoods, but were reintroduced by Diana and Prince Charles.
They wed in 1986, five years after Diana and Charles’s wedding. Less than two
years apart in age, Diana and Sarah became fast friends. (Read the article here.)
Also included is this infamous photo, which was an example of the follies of Fergie and Di:
photo credit: Ken Goff/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty
Note that I wrote the post below yesterday; this new story posted online this morning. In other words, your blogger got there first.
Original post:
Issue dated February 12, 2018: Kate and Meghan
Another in what I'm sure will be an on-going series of cover stories about Meghan and her upcoming royal wedding. Based on the article currently posted on people.com (read it here) People is stretching the "best friends" narrative a little. There are a couple of quotes from "sources" that point out that both women are now 36 and both live at Kensington Palace. There's also a reprint of that nice picture of the two couples at church on Christmas Day, also printed on the new cover. It's pretty weak tea. It would be lovely if the two royal wives could become good friends, but there's no real evidence that it's happened yet.
On the other hand, there's a deja vu aura to the story. Back in the 80s, People ran not one but two cover stories about a previous generation's royal wives, Diana, the Princess of Wales and Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. In the issue dated October 13, 1986, just weeks after Sarah's wedding to Prince Andrew, the headline was "The Merry Wives of Windsor":
Less than a year later, the issue dated July 20, 1987 had one of my favorite headlines of all times: "Naughty, Naughty, The follies of Fergie and Di." Wow.
The follies of Fergie and Di didn't work out so well, of course, but there's every reason to think things will go better this time around. At the time of these cover stories, Diana and Sarah were both still in their mid-20s. At 36, Kate and Meghan are the same as Diana was when she died. The royal family has worked hard to learn from the tragic mistakes of the past, and both William and Harry have been allowed to choose partners they actually love, even though neither woman would have been considered an appropriate royal wife just one generation ago. What will be the topic of the next royal cover? Meghan's wedding dress? Her unconventional family members? Harry's good friends the Obamas, and whether or not they're invited to the big day? Stay tuned.
Still no sign of Melania.
Last year at this time: Issue dated February 13, 2017
