Holiday, everyday!

CNN MENU for “The Death of Princess Diana”

• Diana Inc.
• Princess and the Nun
• Investigation Status
• Althorp Map
• The Last Hours
• Multimedia
• Main

“The commercialization of a princess”  – Diana Inc.:

• A field day for critics
• ‘Ridiculous and insensitive’
• Only 6 products approved
• A matter of great delicacy
• Fund’s control challenged
• ‘We’re not into litigation’
• 10% from Diana exhibit
• No longer an issue

By CNN Interactive Writer John Christensen

(CNN) — In the year since the death of Princess Diana, scarcely a day has passed that at least a few of her admirers have not made the pilgrimage to Kensington Palace to honor her memory.

Londoners have grown accustomed to people taking photographs of the palace — the princess’ last home — or leaving flowers, messages and other signs of their abiding fondness for her.

This unflagging interest in the princess has also manifested itself in a desire to take home a memento, a keepsake, a souvenir that will endure even as memories yellow and curl with age.

The willingness by her admirers to spend money on Princess Diana memorabilia is equaled — and sometimes exceeded — only by the eagerness of those selling it.

Even before the princess was buried, entrepreneurs were churning out her likeness on items ranging from thimbles and saucepans to Christmas decorations and computer screen-savers.

But the guardians of her legacy also moved swiftly.

Four days after her death, the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund was established as a trust to channel this swelling commercial impulse toward charities helping those “at the margins of society.”

In the 11 months since, the fund has raised more than $100 million (£62 million), and distributed nearly $23 million (£14 million).

The fund — with Diana’s estate’s approval — has licensed six products. But scores of other products bearing her likeness or signature have been marketed by companies without the fund’s approval, and often without contributing to it. The fund has both sued and been sued by companies over the “intellectual property” rights to Diana, and has sent warning letters to many others.

A field day for critics

Naturally, financial transactions invoking Diana’s memory have raised a few eyebrows in a country where propriety’s perimeter is carefully monitored for trespassers.

The critics had a field day last spring, for example, when the princess’ signature appeared on tubs of margarine manufactured by a company that also sponsored the London Marathon.

Flora, the manufacturer, announced that the princess’ fund would receive some of the proceeds from the promotion, but many in the public and the media concluded that the fund would stop at nothing in its zeal for profit.

In fact, says attorney Andrew Dobson, the fund had nothing to do with Flora’s decision and was powerless to do anything about it.

“The margarine was not a licensed product,” says Dobson, who represents the princess’ estate. “If you had a garden sale and indicated on a sign that the proceeds were going to go to the fund, it would not require us to approve it. That’s fund-raising.”

And fund-raising, says Dobson, is what Flora was up to in its two-week promotion, which had an announced goal of $600,000. When it was over, however, the company turned over $3.26 million (£2 million) to the fund.

‘Ridiculous and insensitive’

While the memorial fund is responsible for fielding proposals and approving products, it is the princess’ estate that permits the use of her likeness and signature as intellectual property. And it is the estate that has the final say on every product the fund approves.

Streaming Video

The fund has nine unpaid trustees, many of them longtime charity activists. Among the trustees is the princess’ sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, who is also an executor of the princess’ estate. The estate’s other executors are Frances Shand Kydd, the mother of the princess and Lady McCorquodale, and the Rt. Rev. Hon. Richard Chartress, the bishop of London. Neither are trustees of the fund.

The estate’s beneficiaries are the princess’ sons, Princes William and Harry. Their guardian, at least where the princess’ estate is concerned, is former prime minister John Major.

Staff members at the fund say it has received more than 2,000 proposals in the 11 months it has been in operation. More than a few, says assistant press officer Jo Greensted, have been “completely ridiculous and insensitive.

“We’ve had proposals for things like accident emergency kits, seat belts and colonic irrigation kits,” Greensted says indignantly. “And some came literally the week after the princess died.”

There was also a cable TV movie produced in Britain last spring that was immediately greeted with charges of tastelessly exploiting the princess’ memory.

And a Canadian newspaper reported recently that “at least 700 licensees” had paid fees to the fund for the right to market such things as tea towels and mugs bearing the princess’ likeness.

“Absolute rubbish,” says Amanda Clow, one of the fund’s press officers.

Only 6 products approved

In fact, the trustees have approved only six products: a set of commemorative stamps from the British post office; the Princess Beanie Baby, a purple bear with a rose on its chest; a crystal candle holder; a tribute CD featuring Elton John and other musicians; scented candles; and two limited-edition enamel boxes.

The products range in price from about $1.60 for the stamps and slightly more than $8 for the Beanie Baby to about $160 for the more expensive of the two enamel boxes. John donated $32.6 million (£20 million) from sales of his remake of “Candle in the Wind,” and the “Diana, Princess of Wales — Tribute” CD has raised about $22 million (£13.6 million).

“It’s a surprisingly small number,” Greensted says of the six products, “but it’s a very lengthy process by the fund, and by the estate and its executors.”

There are, as yet, no established criteria for prospective products. Nor, says press officer Vanessa Corringham, does the fund try to find products that the princess might have used or approved of.

“We don’t go there,” Corringham says. “But her sister is on the fund’s board and is an executor of the estate as well. She has a good idea of what is appropriate.”

A matter of great delicacy

The fund and the estate regard “what is appropriate” as a matter of great delicacy.

Dobson says the executors of the estate are intent that it not benefit financially from the commercial activity created by the princess’ death, and prefer that all proceeds go instead to charity.

“We wanted to bring taste and appropriateness to the use of her rights,” says Dobson. “Those are our watchwords.”

Deciding what is tasteful and appropriate can be highly subjective, of course, but the fund must also ensure that the products it approves not only meet that standard but are commercially appealing as well.

Dobson says the reaction to the princess’ signature on tubs of margarine indicates that “there was a limit to how far anyone could commercialize her name. We don’t want profiteering without charity. Even charity has its boundaries beyond which one cannot traverse.”

Nevertheless, he says he cannot imagine the estate overruling the fund on a product. “We’re a like-minded group when it comes to taste and appropriateness. It even makes good commercial sense.

“I hate to use the word ‘brand’ because it sounds horrible,” Dobson says, “but (Princess Diana’s) intellectual property rights are better used at a rarefied level. And the more appropriate it is, the better it will sell.”

Fund’s control challenged

Policing the unlicensed use of the princess’ image and signature has presented the fund with some difficulties.

Corringham says it has issued “a great many” cease-and-desist letters to companies trying to capitalize on the princess’ popularity, and it encourages those companies that have received licenses to help police those that have not.

ALSO