I think that last remark is a bit odd Nimue... Diana wanted a public role, and she did still continue to work at her charity work after her divorce. Yes of course she lived as a royal, she was rich and royal, why should she not? Why should she not ask to be treated as such?
All I know is what I have read.
Of course she wanted a public role. It pleased her. But she had exited her royal role. It's possible with another kind of personality, there would have been more discreet behavior. But if there was present discretion in the character, it is unlikely divorce would have been necessary to begin with.
I don't entirely approve of her doing the Morton book or the Panormaa interview, but they were done to get out of her marriage or at least to sort out her position as the wife of a royal who no longer wanted her as his wife.
Here I have to adamantly disagree.
Diana did the Morton book and the Panorama interview as damage control, to off-set serious bad press due to her extracurricular activities making headlines. Her damage control was masterful in many ways, but it wound up being her ultimate undoing.
She wanted a divorce or to have her position regularised as the mother of a future King...who was not living with her husband. It was not done for money.
Worse than money: she did it to denigrate the man and institution she had been so keen to marry into. And I don't think for a moment she thought Charles would ever be able to divorce her, which made her far more reckless than was wise.
And I can't see why you feel Diana should buy an estate (she didn't like the country) and retire into private life, when she could still do good with her charity work.
Because she wanted a weekend place in the country. That's what I read she said, and her actions speak to that wish. Having a weekend country place does not mean she could not have done charity work. However, she could have chosen a more discreet lifestyle. It would have been a happy choice, I think, but not in her character. She loved the attention too much.
What I read from it is that you disapprove of supper on trays, which is fair enough
No, I don't 'disapprove'. I was questioning the truth of the tale. I was questioning the chef's assertions.
but we then get from the above, it's the 'reverse of endearing', 'odd' 'unusual attitudes' 'not (really) being with one's children' 'lost opportunity for conversation' etc. In what way is that not being a criticism not of the chef but of Diana's parenting skills?
The only time (as I mentioned) that I heard of the supper trays was in the context of keeping her sons away from Charles. In 'The Housekeeper's Diary', this ploy is specifically mentioned, denying Charles the sit-down meal with his family.
The chef's story makes it sound like a regular practice. I questioned his story, asking why we should take his word for it. That's all.
Denville, I am finding it difficult to reconcile the bolded sections of your posts. Diana not only wanted to ensure her public standing (I am not so sure she wanted a divorce), but she undoubtedly wanted to destroy Charles' public standing.
Exactly so.
I agree.
I also think that Diana's actions hurt both Harry and William far more than anything Hewitt has said or done. I've seen no evidence that Hewitt has caused Harry to doubt his parentage. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that Diana's sons were deeply hurt by her public disclosures, particularly the Panorama interview. The Morton book may not have cast doubts on Harry's parentage, but it may have caused him to question whether Charles loved or wanted him when he was born. That had to hurt.
Yep. Nicely summed up.
If it was okay for Diana to "out" Charles and Camilla, it was okay for Hewitt to "out" her.
Yes. Absolutely.
We take it as an undisputed fact that brown eyes are more dominant than blue and therefore it is impossible for a parent with brown eyes to have blue eyed children - however, I am a witness to it in reality. My Mother had dark brown eyes and my Father had deep blue eyes. My two brothers? Both have blue eyes. My brown eyed Mother gave birth to two boys with blue eyes.
Not so, because (as described in 'olden times' regarding the genes
) anyone with the dominant brown gene can have the recessive blue gene (because we have two genes for any characteristic). Hence two brown-eyed parents can have a blue eyed child, because both can have a blue recessive gene (making having a blue-eyed child 25% likely). What is unlikely - in this old version of the genes' operation - is that two blue-eyed parents could not have a brown-eyed child.
However, recent advances in gene research have revealed the issue of eye color being influenced by more factors than just one pair of genes. Just trying to be helpful.