Over the weekend, a featured article in England’s The Sunday Times caused quite a stir, comparing Rihanna to the late Princess Diana. Feminist writer Camille Paglia penned the essay, entitled “Why Rihanna is the new Diana” arguing the two have several key similarities: immense beauty, a love/hate relationship with photographers and a turbulent quest for love.
While Paglia may have located similar behavior in Rihanna and Diana, she is missing crucial context as to what parts each played on the world stage. Diana was a royal princess, Rihanna a pop singer. I guess that makes Jay-Z Queen Elizabeth?
Here are some of the more interesting soundbites from Paglia’s comparison:
On their shared humble backgrounds
“Diana and Rihanna began as sensitive, wounded, but appealingly bubbly and good-natured provincial girls who slowly discovered their own photogenic virtuosity and began to conceptualise themselves as living sculpture for the lens.”
Paglia needs to reconsider her definition of “provincial”. Rihanna was born to a low-income family in Barbados, making “provincial” a condescending, but academically appropriate term. On the other hand, Diana was born with a title to an aristocratic British family. While Lady Diana’s famous vocation as a Kindergarten teacher made for good press, her family (the Spencers) can trace their lineage back to the House of Stuart, a Scottish branch of the royal family that ruled England in the 1500s and 1600s.
So, it can definitely be argued that Diana knew more of what she was getting into in terms of a life of wealth and grandeur, and her roots are quite far from “provincial.”
On their relationship with photographers
“Like Diana, Rihanna has worryingly drifted into using photo ops to send messages of allure, defiance, or revenge in a turbulent relationship with an errant partner…..Diana’s anguished helplessness and isolation inside the royal family, with its stoical code of duty, led her to gravitate toward the ever-hovering paparazzi, whose global power as a media institution increased exponentially because of her popularity…”
Ok, so this claim has a bit more merit, but still contains weak evidence. Both figures certainly craved an outlet for escape. Rihanna does frequently send not-so-cryptic Instagrams with pouty lips, seeking Brown’s attention. Yet, she also posts about her love of marijuana, so it’s not all anguish.
However, Diana’s relationship with the paparazzi was not playful or welcoming. Paglia is correct photographers may have caught Diana’s need for an escape from isolation–inferring from a somber gaze– but she did not seek them out to share herself. Diana screamed at photographers on vacations, wanting to keep her love affair with Dodi Al-Fayed under wraps during her separation from Prince Charles. And lest we forget, she was killed in a car crash as she tried to escape a paparazzi.
On their shared pattern of toxic men
“Diana, rebuffed, eventually accepted her exile. But Rihanna, in the classic syndrome of the battered woman, still pities and hopes to change and save her abuser. (“I was more concerned about him,” she told Oprah about her recovery from Brown’s assault.”)
Paglia’s comparison is richest here, drawing parallels to Diana’s relationship with Charles and Rihanna’s with Chris Brown. While violence was never confirmed, Diana’s marriage to Charles was toxic, and she eventually broke with royal tradition to get a divorce and seek love elsewhere. Rihanna, as the Grammys showcased, is back on Brown’s arm, trying to make it work.
Ultimately, Paglia crafted an interesting essay, but might have done better to focus her comparison rather than trying to make each piece fit. Parts of the argument definitely seem forced.
However, one person is thrilled by the article–Rihanna. “Just so happens I came home drunk to this in a pile of papers outside my hotel room! My lil Bajan behind, never thought these many people would even know my name, now it’s next to Princess Diana’s on the front of a newspaper! Life can be such a beautiful thing when you let it be #yourejealous :),” she wrote on Instagram.
Just a guess, but Diana would probably not feel quite as flattered. The Royal family has yet to comment on the article.
