Different Facets of Diana

[TheTruth]

Four threads have been merged to regroup them under a main subject.
This thread now contains Pregnant Diana, Diana's Hairstyles, Dancing Diana, Diana as Bridesmaid threads and was renamed "Different Facets of Diana".

TheTruth
Diana, Princess of Wales Sub-forum moderator.

 

[pinkie40]

It seems to me the first "real criticism" of Diana came for the hairstyle change at the opening of Parliament. I never understood why the big fuss. It's not like she dyed it pink or green or something odd or disrespectful like that. She merely had a new style in which to secure the tiara.

 

[Elspeth]

It wasn't "merely" - she knew by then that she could command the front page any time she wanted to, and that change of hairstyle looked like an attempt to grab the headlines. It isn't as though her regular hairstyle was incapable of holding her tiara.

The royal family is there to support the Queen, and the State Opening of Parliament is one of the Queen's major roles as Head of State during the year. Of all the times when the other royal ladies should have made sure to leave centre stage to the Queen, that was it. Yet Diana did something which was certain (or even calculated) to steal the limelight from the Queen, hence the criticism.

 

[Skydragon]

I also heard that during a special security training with the British Special Forces, (while newly married) that her hair caught fire but was immediatley put out and from that day onward she kept it realtively short.

MM

I very much doubt that Diana was allowed or expected to do 'security training' with the SAS, it is the RP Officers that are involved in the personal security of members of the RF. I also very much doubt that she would have been put in close proximity to a fire, with the danger of being burnt or her hair catching fire.

 

[Sammy]

I very much doubt that Diana was allowed or expected to do 'security training' with the SAS, it is the RP Officers that are involved in the personal security of members of the RF. I also very much doubt that she would have been put in close proximity to a fire, with the danger of being burnt or her hair catching fire.

I've also heard that story. Here is a link to it and the section of the article regarding Diana
KOSB Edinburgh Association=


DAY HE SET PRINCESS DIANA'S HAIR ON FIRE

CROOKE was in charge of a major SAS training exercise which featured Prince Charles and Princess Diana as special guests.
And the day nearly ended in disaster when a flash bomb set Di's hair alight.
Charles and Di joined in the anti-terrorist exercise when they visited SAS headquarters at Hereford.
A group of "terrorists", played by SAS troops, had seized a mock embassy, and the royal couple joined the units sent to storm the building.
Charles flew one of the helicopters carrying troops into the attack, while his wife joined another assault unit on the ground.
Clive Fairweather recalled: "Diana was dressed up in SAS black kit and driving a Range Rover with one of the ground assault parties.
"She was told, 'On no account get out of the vehicle.' But she did, and a flash-bang hit her, singeing her hair and covering her in flames, sparks and smoke. "One of the SAS men with her beat out the flames."
Diana had to have her hair cut short after the incident. And next day, the Press was full of the princess's new look. Fairweather said: "Diana's daring new hairdo covered front pages worldwide".
"Ian Crooke was in charge of the whole operation and she and Charles loved it."



It was also my understanding that members of the Royal family were taught defensive driving, gun handling, etc. in case they were ever put in a similiar situation as Princess Ann.

 

[Skydragon]

Thank you for the link, which rather proves my point that Diana was not given security training by the SAS, but was merely there along with Charles for a 'jolly'. The fact that she disobeyed instruction and was caught by a thunder flash, (which despite the write up in the article telling us that it "covered her in flames", artistic exaggeration IE), would not normally remove enough hair to need such a drastic restyling, nor should her SAS kit have caught fire in the first place. I had the misfortune to be a victim of a joker with a couple of thunder flashes/flash bombs, (he was made to suffer, trust me).

Do you have a link to an article that leads to your understanding that members of the RF are taught 'defensive' driving?

Of course such driving would not have helped Anne, as she was being chauffeured at the time of the attack. DD skills require a great deal of training and indeed practice, it is not something that can be picked up in a weekend and it is beyond many people's capability.

We all know that the majority of the RF know how to handle rifles and shotguns, but I have never heard of training in the use of close proximity weapons or pistols, outside of the regular forces training the men have undertaken.

 

[pinkie40]

It wasn't "merely" - she knew by then that she could command the front page any time she wanted to, and that change of hairstyle looked like an attempt to grab the headlines. It isn't as though her regular hairstyle was incapable of holding her tiara.

The royal family is there to support the Queen, and the State Opening of Parliament is one of the Queen's major roles as Head of State during the year. Of all the times when the other royal ladies should have made sure to leave centre stage to the Queen, that was it. Yet Diana did something which was certain (or even calculated) to steal the limelight from the Queen, hence the criticism.

What would have been Diana's "calculated" motivation to "steal the limelight" at that particular juncture?

She was still relatively new to the royal stage at this point and extremely popular by just "showing up" at certain events. Although I have to admit it was not the best place to debut a "new" 'do, but then again I blame her hair stylist more than I blame Diana's "evildoings" at this particular time in her life due to the fact Diana seems to be upset (biting her lip in many of the Parliament photos) rather than relishing a public relations coup with a sneering smile of satisfaction.

 

[Elspeth]

What would have been Diana's "calculated" motivation to "steal the limelight" at that particular juncture?

This was November 1984, if I remember right. According to Diana in the Morton book, her marriage had gone terminally sour after Prince Harry's birth, which would have been in September 1984. Her reaction to perceived hurts and slights from the royal family was to reach out to the public and reinforce the adulation she received from the people and the press, often at the expense of the royals. She would have known by then, over three years into her marriage, that a new look would be enough to guarantee centre stage. She would also have known by then that at the State Opening of Parliament, more than at just about any other event during the year, centre stage didn't belong to her. It wasn't until later, after the Morton book and a few other incidents, that the pattern became clearer. At the time it just looked like a princess who was so in love with her own popularity that she did a rather foolish thing to ensure headlines. Hindsight shows that it was much more likely to have been an early example of her tendency to use the press in an "up yours" campaign against the royal family who weren't being all that supportive about the state of her marriage. This was, after all, the woman who wanted to be Queen in people's hearts.

She was still relatively new to the royal stage at this point and extremely popular by just "showing up" at certain events. Although I have to admit it was not the best place to debut a "new" 'do, but then again I blame her hair stylist more than I blame Diana's "evildoings" at this particular time in her life due to the fact Diana seems to be upset (biting her lip in many of the Parliament photos) rather than relishing a public relations coup with a sneering smile of satisfaction.

I assume Diana's stylist didn't decide on his own, over her objections, to do something new and eye-catching. And since we aren't mind readers, it's hard to know why she was sitting there looking upset. As became clear later, she was pretty expert at playing the victim when she wanted public sympathy, so it's every bit as possible that she was trying to send a "poor little me" message to the public on account of the state of her marriage. Or maybe Prince Philip had collared her and told her what he thought of her scene-stealing and she was having a sulk. Who knows?

 

[pinkie40]

She had grown her hair out a lot that summer so a different hairstyle was needed in order to secure the tiara in November 1984. And she became very thin very fast after Harry's birth so the eating disorder/post partum depression was again in high gear (which might have affected the quality of her hair)..And, she had worn several different hair styles in the recent months as we have seen in the previous pages of this thread.

I just didn't detect in the body language from the photos that Diana was "out to get" the Queen as she obviously tried to "one up" Prince Charles in the Stambolian dress years later.

 

[Elspeth]

She had grown her hair out a lot that summer so a different hairstyle was needed in order to secure the tiara in November 1984. And she became very thin very fast after Harry's birth so the eating disorder/post partum depression was again in high gear (which might have affected the quality of her hair)..And, she had worn several different hair styles in the recent months as we have seen in the previous pages of this thread.

I just didn't detect in the body language from the photos that Diana was "out to get" the Queen as she obviously tried to "one up" Prince Charles in the Stambolian dress years later.

However, you said in your earlier post that you'd never understood why she was criticised for doing this. That may have something to do with the fact that, to a non-British person, the State Opening of Parliament might appear to be just another royal event where everyone gets decked out in their formal rig and does ancient ceremonial things, whereas many people in Britain understand that it's one of the most important things, if not the single most important thing, that the Queen does during the year. This is the Queen in her most formal capacity as Head of State - hence the use of the crown. Of all the times when princesses should be very careful to be members of the supporting cast, this was the time. And Diana wasn't careful, hence the criticsm. Of course the Diana apologists will make excuses for her and blame everyone else in sight, but that's a different matter from not being able to understand why other people thought this was, at best, an inconsiderate thing for Diana to have done.

 

[Sammy]

Thank you for the link, which rather proves my point that Diana was not given security training by the SAS, but was merely there along with Charles for a 'jolly'. The fact that she disobeyed instruction and was caught by a thunder flash, (which despite the write up in the article telling us that it "covered her in flames", artistic exaggeration IE), would not normally remove enough hair to need such a drastic restyling, nor should her SAS kit have caught fire in the first place. I had the misfortune to be a victim of a joker with a couple of thunder flashes/flash bombs, (he was made to suffer, trust me).

Do you have a link to an article that leads to your understanding that members of the RF are taught 'defensive' driving?

Of course such driving would not have helped Anne, as she was being chauffeured at the time of the attack. DD skills require a great deal of training and indeed practice, it is not something that can be picked up in a weekend and it is beyond many people's capability.

We all know that the majority of the RF know how to handle rifles and shotguns, but I have never heard of training in the use of close proximity weapons or pistols, outside of the regular forces training the men have undertaken.

Diana: Her True Story by Andrew Morton (1992) - Chapter 5 - My Cries for Help.

"She went to the headquarters of the Special Air Services in Hereford where she underwent a "terrifying" driving course where she learnt the basic techniques in handling a possible terrorist attack or kidnap attempt. Thunderflashes and smoke bombs were thrown at her car by her "enemies" to make sure that the training was as realistic as possible."

It also goes on to say that Diana "went to Lippits Hill in Loughton, Essex, where officers from the Metropolitan Police receive weapons training. There she learnt how to handle a .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver and a Hechler and Koch machine pistol which are now standard issue to members of the Royal Protection squad."

Granted, that is Diana and not the other members of the Royal family. But I would wonder about the Queen... as memory serves didn't she learn to drive an ambulance or something during the war? Might she have been taught something similar?

 

[Sammy]

However, you said in your earlier post that you'd never understood why she was criticised for doing this. That may have something to do with the fact that, to a non-British person, the State Opening of Parliament might appear to be just another royal event where everyone gets decked out in their formal rig and does ancient ceremonial things, whereas many people in Britain understand that it's one of the most important things, if not the single most important thing, that the Queen does during the year. This is the Queen in her most formal capacity as Head of State - hence the use of the crown. Of all the times when princesses should be very careful to be members of the supporting cast, this was the time. And Diana wasn't careful, hence the criticsm. Of course Diana supporters will make excuses for her and blame everyone else in sight, but that's a different matter from not being able to understand why other people thought this was, at best, an inconsiderate thing for Diana to have done.

Well, this particular Diana supporter agrees, it was very poor judgement on Diana's part. The Queen is the "star" of that occasion and it IS very important, she shouldn't have been upstaged. The new 'do should have made an appearance elsewhere.

Not all Diana fans believe she was a saint on a pedistal. We are not all zealots - the correct wording should have been"some Diana supporters...".

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I was using the term "supporters" in an attempt to be polite, since the terms I think are more accurate - zealots or apologists - seem a little harsh. However, I've edited my post accordingly.

 

[Skydragon]

Diana: Her True Story by Andrew Morton (1992) - Chapter 5 - My Cries for Help. ........"She went to the headquarters of the Special Air Services in Hereford where she underwent a "terrifying" driving course where she learnt the basic techniques in handling a possible terrorist attack or kidnap attempt. Thunderflashes and smoke bombs were thrown at her car by her "enemies" to make sure that the training was as realistic as possible."...... There she learnt how to handle a .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver and a Hechler and Koch machine pistol which are now standard issue to members of the Royal Protection squad
Granted, that is Diana and not the other members of the Royal family. But I would wonder about the Queen... as memory serves didn't she learn to drive an ambulance or something during the war? Might she have been taught something similar?

Ahh, the Morton book! Knowing that it is in the Morton book makes me question the training even more, it certainly does not make me believe that is why she radically changed her hairstyle. I would also question whether the H&K machine pistol (and which one) was used by SO14 in Diana's day.

I still doubt that Diana would have undergone 'training' with the SAS. She may have been allowed to 'enjoy' being part of an exercise, but specific training...... Could the 'terrifying driving course' have been the good old high speed pursuit exercise, (which, to me was great fun when I completed it on bike and in car)?

I should think every member of the SAS or specialist bodyguard training units would agree that even basic training would take place over at least one week, with a variety of scenarios, but on the whole these courses are not given to possible victims.

HM learned to drive during her stint during the war, with the ATS.

 

[Sammy]

You know, this forum consistantly treats those with an interest in Diana as persona non grata.
We are treated with derision and disrespect.

NOT all of us with an interest in Diana paint our faces, make nasty comments about other royals, nor do we believe ANYONE is "saintlike". In short we are not zealots. We enjoy discussing Diana as well as learning about the various other royal families.

However, the general consensus among Diana followers is that to post in this forum is to invite criticism and a questioning of our intelligence.
This is why many of the "familiar names" in the Diana section no longer post. After 3 years of watching this go downhill, I know mine will no longer be found here.

 

[Elspeth]

You know, this forum consistantly treats those with an interest in Diana as persona non grata.
We are treated with derision and disrespect.

I think TheTruth might disagree with you - you know, on account of both being a member with an interest in Diana and having been invited onto the moderation team. I believe the same goes for Polly. If either of them believes they've been treated with derision and disrespect, I have yet to hear it from them.

NOT all of us with an interest in Diana paint our faces, make nasty comments about other royals, nor do we believe ANYONE is "saintlike". In short we are not zealots. We enjoy discussing Diana as well as learning about the various other royal families.

However, the general consensus among Diana followers is that to post in this forum is to invite criticism and a questioning of our intelligence.
This is why many of the "familiar names" in the Diana section no longer post. After 3 years of watching this go downhill, I know mine will no longer be found here.

Fair enough. On the other hand, I'll just say that it'd be nice if more of the Diana supporters (the non-zealots) would speak out against the zealots like TheTruth does, rather than sitting quietly while the zealots do their thing and then turning around and complaining at the Diana detractors. Tacit support for extremists is also somewhat frustrating to deal with, and it's still support even if it isn't articulated, as long as one side is being criticised and the other is not. If the apologists knew their extremism was no more welcome by the moderate supporters than anti-Diana extremism is, it might help to make things less polarised.

 

[Skydragon]

You know, this forum consistantly treats those with an interest in Diana as persona non grata.
We are treated with derision and disrespect.

NOT all of us with an interest in Diana paint our faces, make nasty comments about other royals, nor do we believe ANYONE is "saintlike". In short we are not zealots. We enjoy discussing Diana as well as learning about the various other royal families.

In case it was the laughing smiley that caused you upset, it was aimed at me and my ohh so predictable response to the Morton book. I was not questioning your intelligence, in fact most of the Diana supporters seem to be knowledgeable people and enjoy discussing how they formed their opinions.

 

[Warren]

..this forum consistantly treats those with an interest in Diana as persona non grata.
We are treated with derision and disrespect... After 3 years of watching this go downhill, I know mine will no longer be found here.

In 3 years the Diana area has been expanded into a separate subforum which now has 110 current threads, more than any other in the British Forums. Thirty of these threads have had posts added since the beginning of this year which, to me, demonstrates a high level of member interest and involvement. There is a wealth of photographs and information in the Diana subforum, along with extensive discussion and analysis which cover all aspects of the 'Diana phenomenon'.

I am finding it difficult to see evidence that members with an interest in Diana are treated as "persona non grata", nor that the Diana subforum has gone "downhill".

 

[Mermaid1962]

I joined this board in recent months, and I haven't seen any postings by
"Diana extremists." Perhaps they had left by the time I arrived. My own opinion is that Diana had tremendous gifts and abilities and gave ordinary people a lot of joy when they had contact with her, but she was too young and vulnerable to deal with the pressures and dynamics of marrying into the Royal Family. The "War of the Waleses"/Why Did They Ever Marry issues have been dealt with ad nauseum, and so I tend not to get involved with those discussions.

 

[GillW]

Fair enough. On the other hand, I'll just say that it'd be nice if more of the Diana supporters (the non-zealots) would speak out against the zealots like TheTruth does, rather than sitting quietly while the zealots do their thing and then turning around and complaining at the Diana detractors. Tacit support for extremists is also somewhat frustrating to deal with, and it's still support even if it isn't articulated, as long as one side is being criticised and the other is not. If the apologists knew their extremism was no more welcome by the moderate supporters than anti-Diana extremism is, it might help to make things less polarised.

I consider myself one of those non-zealot supporters of Diana, however, I have spent over 20 years trying to put a rational and balanced view to those extremists and quite frankly I'm getting a bit tired of it all.

Yes I still very much admire her & enjoy reading discussions (for the most part anyway) BUT I just feel I'm running out of steam repeating over & over all the things that can be found in the public domain if only people would take the time to read anything other than sensationalist headlines.

Don't just buy/borrow a book - try reading one - indeed several - and form a more rounded opinion. But the world (OK - forums!) seem full of people who never read more than the flash across the front page of some less-than-trustworthy mag in a supermarket, and then base their whole picture on those five or six words.

I was around throughout the "Diana years", and saw her for real a number of times. I also read at least 5 or six daily newspapers every single day, every magazine I could get hold of which featured Diana , and have a collection of over 100 books just about her (yes - I HAVE read them...) I watched the national and local news & recorded every time she was on a broadcast (however many times each day, just in case they used a few different frames)

I have also read the Paget Report, many of the Inquest transcripts (from the website) and all of the Judges summing up.

But, I find it exhausting trying to explain to a closed minded extremist as to why there may be another side to their opinions. It's very rare that they move even in the slightest, so I tend to hang back & let them rant (while I treasure my memories instead....)

 

[Mermaid1962]

It's wonderful that you have those memories of seeing Diana to treasure, GillW.

I consider myself one of those non-zealot supporters of Diana, however, I have spent over 20 years trying to put a rational and balanced view to those extremists and quite frankly I'm getting a bit tired of it all.

Yes I still very much admire her & enjoy reading discussions (for the most part anyway) BUT I just feel I'm running out of steam repeating over & over all the things that can be found in the public domain if only people would take the time to read anything other than sensationalist headlines.

Don't just buy/borrow a book - try reading one - indeed several - and form a more rounded opinion. But the world (OK - forums!) seem full of people who never read more than the flash across the front page of some less-than-trustworthy mag in a supermarket, and then base their whole picture on those five or six words.

I was around throughout the "Diana years", and saw her for real a number of times. I also read at least 5 or six daily newspapers every single day, every magazine I could get hold of which featured Diana , and have a collection of over 100 books just about her (yes - I HAVE read them...) I watched the national and local news & recorded every time she was on a broadcast (however many times each day, just in case they used a few different frames)

I have also read the Paget Report, many of the Inquest transcripts (from the website) and all of the Judges summing up.

But, I find it exhausting trying to explain to a closed minded extremist as to why there may be another side to their opinions. It's very rare that they move even in the slightest, so I tend to hang back & let them rant (while I treasure my memories instead....)

 

[GillW]

It's wonderful that you have those memories of seeing Diana to treasure, GillW.

I'm always happy to share those too, for the right occasion or if they fit into a discussion....

 

[Elspeth]

Gill, did you manage to take any photos of Diana? We're always looking for photos to illustrate our articles, and we have quite a lot of Diana articles in the works, one way and another.

 

[Elspeth]

But, I find it exhausting trying to explain to a closed minded extremist as to why there may be another side to their opinions. It's very rare that they move even in the slightest, so I tend to hang back & let them rant (while I treasure my memories instead....)

I know how you feel - I also post at discussion forums on creationism-evolution and climate change issues, and it's quite common to come across people who Know the Truth and aren't remotely interested in anything like facts or reason. It would be a complete waste of time to post at those forums if the intent was to get these people to change their minds, because this is a fairly textbook case of not being able to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into. However, those people aren't the real audience. When I'm posting in those discussions, I'm mostly doing it because other people are reading along in the background, and if there isn't someone to put the other side of the argument - or, even more importantly, to explain the moderate position that's in between the emotion-driven extremes - then the undecided or ignorant readers-in-the-background might not realise that there are other opinions other than, in this case, that Diana was a flawless paragon of perfection or that she was stupid, self-centred, and vindictive.

 

[GillW]

I know how you feel - I also post at discussion forums on creationism-evolution and climate change issues, and it's quite common to come across people who Know the Truth and aren't remotely interested in anything like facts or reason. It would be a complete waste of time to post at those forums if the intent was to get these people to change their minds, because this is a fairly textbook case of not being able to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into. However, those people aren't the real audience. When I'm posting in those discussions, I'm mostly doing it because other people are reading along in the background, and if there isn't someone to put the other side of the argument - or, even more importantly, to explain the moderate position that's in between the emotion-driven extremes - then the undecided or ignorant readers-in-the-background might not realise that there are other opinions other than, in this case, that Diana was a flawless paragon of perfection or that she was stupid, self-centred, and vindictive.

You make a very good point there and I'll try to bear it in mind next time I'm tempted to "tut" & move on! I shall try to contribute instead....

 

[Skydragon]

I also heard that during a special security training with the British Special Forces, (while newly married) that her hair caught fire but was immediatley put out and from that day onward she kept it realtively short.

MM

This article, (posted by Elspeth elsewhere) rather puts paid to that rumour.

One of Diana’s hairstyles — at the State Opening of Parliament in 1984 — caused a huge furore which left her mother-in-law the Queen distinctly unamused.

Scots bachelor Richard had created a chignon for Diana — a swept-behind-the-head bun — which grabbed all the headlines the following day.
He recalled: “There was a big hoo-ha afterwards. Diana was horrified when the hairdo eclipsed the Queen and it completely altered the way we approached changing her length and styles.

 

[jcbcode99]

Was the Queen really upset about that? She seems like such a no-nonsense person to me I can hardly believe that she was upset about it.
Personally, I think the look suited Diana quite well, and wish she had worn her hair fuller than she did.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is my opinion on what happened. Diana and her hairdresser decided to do her hair "up" because it was long at that time in November 1984. Longer hair worn down with a tiara just doesn't look right. Diana goes to the State Opening of Parliament and the papers go ga-ga because she has a new hairstyle. Then the story goes around because the Queen was supposed to have been upset by it. I doubt that HM was upset because her daughter-in-law decided on a new hairstyle; if she was upset at all, it was because the Speech From the Throne, which outlines upcoming government policy, wasn't reported properly. So I think the upset, if there was any, didn't happen because of Diana's hairstyle; it happened because of what the papers chose to publish.

Was the Queen really upset about that? She seems like such a no-nonsense person to me I can hardly believe that she was upset about it.
Personally, I think the look suited Diana quite well, and wish she had worn her hair fuller than she did.

Perhaps a sleeker dress would have suited the new hairstyle more. I thought that the combination of the tiara up-do and the puffy dress didn't work together well.

 

[TheTruth]

Was the Queen really upset about that? She seems like such a no-nonsense person to me I can hardly believe that she was upset about it.
Personally, I think the look suited Diana quite well, and wish she had worn her hair fuller than she did.

I agree. I really doubt the Queen was touched by any of this childish competition created by the press and by Diana at times. She's far beyond that and she was used to not take whatever happens personally. The only moment where HM was upstaged by Diana was at her death.

 

[georgiea]

You make a very good point there and I'll try to bear it in mind next time I'm tempted to "tut" & move on! I shall try to contribute instead....

Please keep posting. I love when you talk about Diana, Princess of Wales. I have about 30 books on her and have read each one.