Re: Princess Diana - Part 2

[Kalafrana]

To be fair to Prince Charles, he got what was at the time a perfectly respectable degree (a 2.2, I think) in the days before grade inflation and coursework made it much easier to get a 2.1. But unless the teaching is extremely bad (which does happen, but probably not at expensive girls' boarding schools), a person of even  moderate intelligence is not going to fail all her O levels except Art.

Ann

[Martyn]

A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........

Martyn:

There is no need for sarcasm here ("a note to the wise prinzheinelgirl"). I made it clear that I'm new to books on Diana and would appreciate any other views other than what Tina Brown presented in her book.  Tina's book is just two of what I have read on Diana so far and I have yet to read and sift through other materials on her to get a more balanced view.

Not that I'm so interested in Diana, because what I'm really interested in are 17th & 18th century Austrian and Spanish royalty. I'm just very curious about her (supposed) remark to Prince Philip.

There was no sarcasm intended.  You are assuming that I hadn't picked up on the fact that you are 'new to books on Diana' - I had indeed noted that.  It's always a good idea to make sure that you quote someone correctly as well!

AS no one has really picked up on this 'supposed', perhaps it is a safe assumption that it is just that......'supposed'?

[Martyn]

A word to the wise prinzheinelgirl.  Tina Brown's book is endlessly diverting and no doubt contains truth and fact; there is however much that is anecdotal and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt........

Very true Martyn....Tina sadly at times does mix fact & fiction in a cocktail shaker..

That's a very succinct way of putting it Ashdean!

[Martyn]

To be fair to Prince Charles, he got what was at the time a perfectly respectable degree (a 2.2, I think) in the days before grade inflation and coursework made it much easier to get a 2.1.

I won't argue with that.  It's respectable.  But then there is small chance that he would have graduated with a 3rd, is there?  How would that have looked?  As I said though, he now is viewed as a man with a very keen intellect, so perhaps life and experience have embellished an average academic career?

But unless the teaching is extremely bad (which does happen, but probably not at expensive girls' boarding schools), a person of even  moderate intelligence is not going to fail all her O levels except Art.

Ann

That's an opinion I suppose.  I don't think that it's a widely held view that she was unintelligent.  Not academic perhaps? 

[Grace]

Of course, most of what we are delving into here is related more to our personal views than facts, a la the Wallis/David thread! 

I don't regard Charles as a genuine intellectual at all.  He is a deep thinker...a ponderer and he's had a life where he's had the time and the means to indulge that.  That's not to say he's not intelligent of course.  But anyone who claims Diana was a dimwit is way off the mark.  She had more 'emotional intelligence' than perhaps any royal before her.  She may have been the wrong wife for Charles but she was the right Princess of Wales and it wasn't a matter of her only being a shallow people-pleaser either.  She did her job well and with knowledge and insight.  It was her unhappy private life that got in the way of that job.

For her critics...name someone who would have done a better job than her? 

[Kalafrana]

Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

[ashdean]

Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

Here here.
Ann...very well put!

[Grace]

Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

Just what are those divisions and controversy still very much apparent 14 years after her death, Ann?  What is very much apparent is your intense dislike of the late Princess of Wales and in that, absolute refusal to acknowledge the many positive character traits she had which she brought to her royal role.  And...who said she should have been nothing other than a "support" for the Prince of Wales?  Are you married?  Was that only as a "support" to your husband?  What tosh!  That Diana became a "rival" to her husband almost from Day 1 was because of press attention and public interest - that was not of her doing at all.   

[Robert_Hall]

IMO, if Diana was a "disaster"  for the monarchy, it needed it. The institution was moribund. It needed  lots of fresh air to wake it up.
 Although Charles is a product of that old, dusty school,  Diana produced new hope in William and now Catherine to further the  road to relevance of the institution  in British life.

[Grace]

Well said, Robert.  My point was not to regard Diana as perfect or a towering intellect, but about acknowledging the very real qualities she had and which she brought to the royal family - regardless of her lack of "O" levels or the modern equivalent.  There are some who simply won't accept this in any way, shape or form.  

[Kalafrana]

'Just what are those divisions and controversy still very much apparent 14 years after her death, Ann?'

There is still a great deal of dislike of Prince Charles and failure to acknowledge his good qualities and conscientious approach to his royal duties. For example, I do not think he is given anything like enough credit for setting up the Prince's Trust in 1977, which was, apparently, entirely his own initiative in what was not at that time a terribly fashionable area of charitable endeavour.  The Prince's Trust is now very well established and doing a lot of useful work - we regularly hear of young entrepreneurs who got their enterprises going with the aid of grants and advice from the Trust.

Marrying a member of the royal family is rather different from marrying an ordinary husband. A 'normal' wife may nowadays have a separate career without causing any problems, but problems tend to begin in any marriage if one spouse becomes a rival to the other rather than the two being mutually supportive.  While I accept that the rivalry between Charles and Diana was begun by the press, Diana herself came to revel in it.

[Kalafrana]

Continuing from previous message.

I will admit that during her lifetime I got thoroughly fed up with Diana and all the adulation for her. Partly this is due to an instinctive regard to the underdog - 'poor old Charles', who according to the press could do nothing right where she was concerned. Partly it is due to a different approach to getting things done. I simply prefer Charles's approach of working away quietly with the Prince's Trust and Princess Anne's telling the staff of refugee camps to sort the drains out to Diana's going round hugging people. Prompting people to give money to charity is all very well, but what is possibly even more important is making sure the money is used responsibly. Diana may have been good at the first, but what about the second?

Ann

[feodorovna]

So wouldn't it have been wonderful if they could have "pooled" their respective talents-they would have been unstoppable. I don't believe that the things Diana "knew" and felt can be found in books, nor can they be taught but it doesn't render them more or less valuable than talents gained via the regular routes. It may simply be how they have evolved, but I feel that there have, since Diana, been subtle changes in the RF. It may be my imagination but HM appears more focused on, perhaps even more relaxed with the person to whom she is speaking, than she previously did. Of course, I could have got it entirely wrong, it may be just that her family as less of a problem to her than they were!!!

[Selencia]

Diana was a disaster for the monarchy, in that she created divisions and controversy which are still very much apparent 14 years after her death. Instead of acting as a support to the Prince of Wales, she very rapidly became a rival.

It's impossible to say what would have happened had Charles married someone else, but in my view Camilla is now doing an excellent job of being a royal consort.

Ann

I used to be a fan of Diana and bought into the "poor Diana mistreated by everyone" mentality. Reading up on her after her death she does seem to have been a thorough disaster for the RF; and the image she and the press tried to create of Charles was largely based on falsehoods. Only thing worse would probably have been Sarah Ferguson. Both Sarah and Diana seem to have been incapable of surviving in the royal family and understanding what their roles were. I think Diana had some good qualities; but there were definitely some bad qualities which tend to be ignored.

[prinzheinelgirl]

There was no sarcasm intended.  You are assuming that I hadn't picked up on the fact that you are 'new to books on Diana' - I had indeed noted that.  It's always a good idea to make sure that you quote someone correctly as well!

All right then. thanks.

=======

Moving on, I think Diana both had good and bad qualities. She had very keen emotional intelligence, was very professional in her work, and had a good heart.  Had she managed to overcome her "demons", she would have been truly exceptional. It's a pity that she didn't disclose her condition (bulimia) to her doctors, it would've been a good place to start.