Different Facets of Diana

[Moonmaiden23]

So do I, Ish!

 

[sthreats]

Did she actually say that?

Now I want to know her opinion on Sarah, Mark, Tim, Sophie, and Catherine...

Yes Gyles Brandeth book on Charles and Camilla

 

[Warren]

A number of posts have been edited and /or removed.

Maybe it's because of the closeness to the anniversary of Diana's death but whatever the reason, once again the discussion has veered off into the over-emotional and personal. The topic of the thread is "Different Facets of Diana". Who would have thought that observations by a Devonshire and a Mountbatten which relate directly to the topic could lead to so much angst. It's not as if the few sentences quoted are startling revelations which will lead to a re-writing of history, they merely confirm what is already on the record. Abusing them ("must have been paid", "senile") is an absurd over-reaction, while the personal cattiness thrown in by some members toward each other is ugly and unnecessary.

I am aware more than most of the sensitivities and tensions involved when discussions relating to Diana go beyond the anodyne, of the degree of emotional attachment and identification to the late Princess held by some, and of the need of others to act as public defenders. Nonetheless, a discussion of "Different Facets of Diana" will involve exactly that so could members who contribute to the thread please do so with a calm sense of perspective, keep to the topic, and take a step back before over-reacting or becoming personal.

Thanks for everyone's cooperation,

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[wyevale]

(It seems strange now, because Diana's looks were greatly admired, but I remember a rather scathing comment by one of Charles' friends about Diana: Really, nothing special. If he hadn't married her, she'd have trouble getting a date.)

Diana's looks were greatly admired, after her marriage when she took a greater interest in her appearance, had access to the best designers, hairdressers and makeup artists.

Before then there was nothing to distinguish her from a thousand almost identikit 'Sloanes' [ i know because i dated several, and really they were all the same !]

Also she wasn't 'very bright'... and probably rather uninteresting to spend time with [once her limited repertoire of enthusiasms - pop music and pets was exhausted]

It is no surprise to me that such a timid 'mouse' had insufficient interest to hold the attention of a worldly man like the Prince of Wales.

 

[Dman]

The late Princess of Wales wasn't a dumb person as some would like to paint her.

 

[wyevale]

Her Qualifications weren't those of a particularly intelligent or studious individual...Doubtless she acquired knowledge & 'savvy' as she grew older, but nobody could possibly claim she was 'bright' !

 

[Dman]

She was a very bright person. She loved classical music and the opera and could play several of her favorite pieces on the piano. She was very athletic and excelled in swimming and running. She wanted to be a ballerina as a child and practiced up until the end of her life. Diana also loved looking after children and the elderly. When she was a kid, she volunteered at nursing homes and she later went on to work as a nanny.

No doubt that Charles was way more educated than Diana but he's also way more educated than his second wife too.

 

[wyevale]

She was a very bright person.

I suspect that 'Bright' [with reference to an individual] means something different in the United Kingdom and in The United States.

In my country [the UK] it means someone intelligent.. both 'brainy', and also emotionally intelligent. I'm afraid [ IMO ], liking classical music, playing a few tunes on the piano and helping old ladies across the road does NOT make one intelligent. I'm sorry but i don't consider Diana,Princess of Wales an intelligent person, in any way at all.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There are many "bright", smart people who aren't academic. Diana was certainly quick-witted.

 

[blauerengel]

Being "bright" and being university-educated does not always have to go together, I know a lot of people who have great diplomas but lack what is usually called "common sense". Altough nowadays a lot of people tend do treat individuals with less formal education as if they were intellectually inferior, it is amusing because it is only revealing their own insecurities...

Queen Elizabeth II also did not receive a lot of formal education,but she is usually perceived as highly intelligent,disciplined and capable head of state.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I believe the late Diana, Princess of Wales, was a nice woman sometimes - although some of her mistakes can pretty cast a shadow over her good actions.

But I don't think she was bright. Maybe she was clever - The Queen never went to school, but I think she's pretty clever.

The late Diana, Princess of Wales, was not a dumb woman, but she wasn't bright in any way.

A bright woman would never commit mistakes like those of the Princess.

 

[Dman]

Her husband was smarter, bright and clever than both his wives but his education didn't stop him from making mistakes as the future King. Humans make mistakes in life, it don't make them bad people but that's just reality.

 

[mslewis]

The late Princess of Wales wasn't a dumb person as some would like to paint her.

I agree that she wasn't "dumb" but she was not book smart and did not seem to be very "worldly" or interested in much of anything in the beginning. She was very poorly educated but I think that was the norm for aristo girls in those days. Their only ambition was to marry well and run the household.

However, when it suited her, she was smart enough to turn the British press against the royal family and smile while they turned her into a saint. But I do admire her for the things she did to help people less fortunate.

 

[nascarlucy]

I think Princess Diana was a lot smarter than she would lead you to believe. I don't think school or academics were her cup of tea. She was interested in other things.

 

[Osipi]

The late Princess of Wales wasn't a dumb person as some would like to paint her.

She never was dumb but I think the point is that in no way would she ever be classified as scholarly.

As far as I understand it, although she did not hold the title of Princess of Wales after her divorce, it was appropriate that she used the courtesy style of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Took me forever to get it through my last remaining brain cell what the difference is between titles and styles.

 

[Mirabel]

As for Diana's intelligence, she was no intellectual but she was street smart in the way she could manipulate the media. But beyond that? She wasn't well-educated, but the main problem was that she refused to become self-educated. Charles used to complain that she never read any of the books he recommended. Even Barbara Cartland said that the only books Diana ever read were hers, and they weren't good for her.

Who was it who said that the person who does not read has no advantage over the one who cannot read?

 

[blauerengel]

That´s true, Diana was not an academic-intellectual, but she was certainly very smart which is obvious to see when we look at how she learned to deal with the press and create a good PR strategy, something that lots of people with much better educuation do not manage to acchieve.
While she had great communicatitve skills and emotional intelligence, I am sure that a little bit more education (wheter it may be through courses, books etc.) would have helped her to become more confident & self-assured and enabled her to make better decisions about her life, which was very difficult at many times.
Nevertheless I believe we have to accept people the way they are-while I find it very useful to read books and rely on many things that I have learned in school, other people have a different way of solving problems and dealing with the challenges that life holds for them.

 

[Osipi]

As for Diana's intelligence, she was no intellectual but she was street smart in the way she could manipulate the media. But beyond that? She wasn't well-educated, but the main problem was that she refused to become self-educated. Charles used to complain that she never read any of the books he recommended. Even Barbara Cartland said that the only books Diana ever read were hers, and they weren't good for her.

Diana, in the early years of her marriage, wasn't big on reading. I remember reading about the statement that Charles made about his reading suggestions. She was given books to read at Buck House before her wedding and never got into those either. To me it makes sense. If someone handed me a book today about the ins and outs of horse breeding, I'd probably shelve it as I have no interest in the subject at this time. I am an avid bookaholic too. I think perhaps that Diana just didn't really have the interest in delving into the biographies of royals long dead and perhaps Charles' suggestions were a little deep for her at the time. She also had a problem with reading her briefings prepared for her before her engagements.

Later on in life, it was stated that as Diana realized some of her passions, she started to read more. I can't remember exactly where it was (I think in one of Paul Burrell's books so take it with a grain of salt), but when Diana started seeing Hasnat Khan, she started reading quite a bit about his lifestyle and his profession.

As we grow older and mature, we change and our interest change. Things we didn't care to do as kids and young adults become more important to us. I think this is what happened with Diana. As she found her passions, she found that reading was an invaluable tool for her. She may not have always had her nose in a book or would even list books as a passion, she did find them to be useful to her.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I don't want to play at being an amateur psychologist...

I think you're correct in that Diana had affairs because she was insecure and looked for validation from other people. Diana and Charles did not connect on an emotional level and they were both searching for that intimacy.

I don't know which of Charles's friends, if any, said that she wasn't anything special. But, to get back on topic, if this was an attitude she encountered from one or more of Charles's friends, that is no excuse for having an extramarital affair. Neither of them have an excuse.

Diana's inability to sustain fulfilling relationships with other adults wasn't due to her lack of education or disinterest in learning about topics that fascinated Charles. It was a symptom of her basic insecurity and mental illness. I like to think that if she were alive, she would have eventually gotten the medical help she needed and let go of the bitterness and anger and let love into her life.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Diana, in the early years of her marriage, wasn't big on reading...

I agree completely. One of the stories that Andrew Morton tells is that Charles's wedding gift to Diana was a stack of books. He wanted her to read them and they would discuss them. It was actually sweet and would have brought them closer together--if Diana had any actual interest.

It wasn't her fault that she wasn't interested in his passions--the environment, history, architecture. However, he assumed she was interested because of her behavior during their courtship, so the misunderstanding was her fault. But the marriage broke up because they failed to find things they could be passionate about together.

 

[blauerengel]

I agree completely. One of the stories that Andrew Morton tells is that Charles's wedding gift to Diana was a stack of books...

It may have been a gesture with good intentions, but the way people constantly wanted to teach and instruct Diana often sounds like paternalism to me. I would feel treated like a child if a man would tell me what sort of books to read, so it is not surprising that Diana did not feel excited about reading them....I love reading books and constantly try to deepen my knowledge, but if someone tries to make me feel stupid and gives me the feeling that he/she does not take me serious, I would certainly act in a similar way like Diana!

Just like other forum members have already mentioned, Diana was interested in opera and classical music and later in life she has learned a lot about her charitable causes and was actively involved in the work. She was certainly interested in many topics and through her speeches and interviews we know that she had always researched her topics very well (e.g. Aids,land mines,eating disorders...) and supported the campaigns successfully.

Different hobbies and interests do not necessarily have to result in a dis-functional relationship, in fact most of the happy couples I know have found a way that both can have enough time & space for their own interests.

 

[Mirabel]

Just like other forum members have already mentioned, Diana was interested in opera and classical music and later in life she has learned a lot about her charitable causes and was actively involved in the work. She was certainly interested in many topics and through her speeches and interviews we know that she had always researched her topics very well (e.g. Aids,land mines,eating disorders...) and supported the campaigns successfully.

I think it was most likely her staff who researched these things.
Although Diana's sense of compassion was very real, she didn't have a great deal of staying power.

In the case of land mines, for example, I remember the people working to ban them felt that, after a big PR splash, Diana would rapidly lose interest, so they wanted to get that burst of publicity quickly. They knew she would be unwilling to attend board meetings or work behind the scenes.

 

[cinrit]

It may have been a gesture with good intentions...

I can't imagine Charles presented the books to Diana as a lesson, or as a hint that she wasn't smart enough. When your husband (or even a friend, for that matter) really cares about you and wants to share his/her interests with you, they might introduce you to books or movies or plays that they enjoy. It's not an insult. It might be an insult ... or at least hurtful ... from the other side, though, if those gestures are spurned or ignored.

 

[blauerengel]

I can't imagine Charles presented the books to Diana as a lesson...

We do not know in which way the books were presented to Diana,I was just telling from my own experience that some people give books,advice or teachings in a way that make you feel stupid. I also hand out books and sometimes I give advice to my friends, but I always try to do it in a way that is respectful and makes them feel appreciated.
There is a huge difference between genuine care and paternalism! But anyway,that´s just from my personal experience,we do not know how Diana felt about the sort of help and guidance she was given.

 

[Binny2]

IMO, Diana clearly wasn't bright and nor was she street smart. She had a much more interesting quality -- an uncanny ability to go for the jugular with an instinctive ease. The Panorama interview demonstrated she knew exactly where to stick the needle to cause the most hurt. For instance, she purposely decided to air the interview on the date of the Queen's wedding anniversary.

 

[wyevale]

In 1968, Diana was sent to Riddlesworth Hall School, an all-girls boarding school. While she was young, she attended a local public school. She did not shine academically, and was moved to West Heath Girls' School (later reorganised as The New School at West Heath) in Sevenoaks, Kent, where she was regarded as a poor student, having attempted and failed all of her O-levels twice.

This summarises her qualifications to the point where she left school - Subsequently she had a spell being 'finished' in Switzerland, where she would have learnt 'deportment',and a smattering of French.

 

[Mermaid1962]

In North American terms, I think she'd have had the equivalent of a Grade 10 in academic terms followed by some "charm school."

This summarises her qualifications to the point where she left school - Subsequently she had a spell being 'finished' in Switzerland, where she would have learnt 'deportment',and a smattering of French.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ow do you know she lied to him about her interests ?

It was reported at the time and she said it in interviews that she loved the outdoors. She was asked about Balmoral and again said she loved it - but in fact she hated it - she hated the country life - despite saying publicly and in various reports that she loved the country life etc.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Charles should have looked at her educational background and he would have seen it wasn't going to be a match. She was essentially a high school drop out who couldn't even get a GED.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm not sure Diana & Charles's relationship and marriage fell apart just because of her lack of education. Charles is way more educated than his second wife as well. I think the lack of marriage counseling, understanding and the media interference helped their marriage fail.

I"m sure Diana's lack of formal education did not cause their marriage to fall apart. In any event, lack of formal education does not necessarily equate to lack of intelligence or curiosity. A person can have little formal education but be very well informed about a wide range of subjects, including fairly academic and esoteric ones, but that's because they have a good memory and are naturally curious, and are interested in acquiring knowledge. And some personalities simply do not mesh well and no amount of marriage counselling or understanding can make people who are not intrinsically compatible, compatible.