November 5 2000 NEWS REVIEW

It's a rough business, Diana's good name

Think back to 1997 and the origins of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund; the outpouring of grief at Diana's death and the sackloads of cards and letters that arrived, with coins and notes attached. The custodian of that legacy is Andrew Purkis, the fund's chief executive. Purkis never met Diana, and doesn't worry about it. He was involved in the preparations for her funeral as principal adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury - a job, he feels, that was more controversial. "I don't feel the same as I did when I worked for the archbishop - that I was going around with a sort of huge dead weight of suspicion and negativity."

The image of the fund, however, has taken a battering after it spent nearly �2m in legal fees in America trying to establish rights to Diana's image. As we meet in the fund's offices in County Hall, Purkis says: "We're appealing and the battle is certainly not over."

Why doesn't the fund do something practical with its money - like build a children's hospital, as Diana's former butler, Paul Burrell, has suggested? "I think it's much better to create new money for charity and to keep going for longer as a living memorial than to build a bloody hospital," he says.

What about those who say the fund is too commercial? "They need to be challenged."

The fund's critics fulminate about the direction, style and substance of what Purkis is doing. They worry that it has �85m in the bank "doing nothing".

They don't understand the American court case, says Purkis calmly. The problem, he says, is basically that the public is ignorant about the "unique hybrid" he runs.

The fund operates both as a charity and a grant-giving organisation. It has an endowment, based on the money donated in 1997 - but it also has a commercial arm. It raises new money through the licensing of the princess's name and image, which is carried out in conjunction with her estate.

Purkis can't see a problem with the fund's commercialism. He says that, instead of "using the name of Diana to attract donations which would otherwise have gone to other charities", its commercial activities are tapping new sources of revenue. The trouble is that all casual observers see are the multi-million-pound invoices for tax and legal advice and "they think it's absolutely shocking that what they think of as a charity should be running up these kinds of bills. But those legal and tax bills are the operating costs of a trading operation worldwide that has produced �40m for charity".

If the fund is to continue it must, he argues, guard its assets. "You get licensing agreements only when people think that you have rights and know that ultimately you are prepared to fight for your rights. If you just walk away and say, 'Ah well, we won't do anything about our rights,' then you lose those rights very quickly."

To date, the fund has lost two rounds in court against Franklin Mint, an American company that is producing "unlicensed" Diana memorial plates and dolls.

But why should the fund's commercial operations be so much more acceptable? It has, for example, done a deal with Franklin Mint's direct competitor to produce ceramic plates; the difference being that the fund gets a cut. Other licensed Diana products include stationery, notelets, bouquets and cut flowers.

"Look," says Purkis. "If you buy the Diana, Princess of Wales rose that is on sale in America, it's a very fine rose. It's a nice thing to have in its own right and you know that, when you buy this rose, you are continuing her work. We are 'exploiting' - if you want to use that loaded word - people's desire to help her work continue."

But is this really what those who originally sent in their donations either wanted or expected from the fund? Purvis scorns that approach. "You can speculate until the cows come home about exactly what difference thousands of people thought their money would make."

Well, in the grant-giving rounds (three times a year), does he make sure the money goes to charities that had links with the princess when she was alive?

"No," he answers. In the first grant round, they got �13m, but he says: "She was a person who was always on the lookout for new causes to support, so we are not going to be tied permanently to a particular set of organisations that she had dealings with." The fund does, however, prioritise her areas of interest, such as landmines, children and Aids.

Purkis argues that, if the fund attracted new money without appealing to sentimentality or mawkish emotion, then "that's good". If people feel uncomfortable "just because it's commercial, then I think they've got a problem.

"You know, if people are determined to say that a very carefully controlled 'exploitation' of a memory to help landmine victims is completely on a par with 'Her Radiant Beauty Shines: ceramic plate no 16', it's very difficult to have a conversation with them."

Jackie Rowley