Different Facets of Diana

[Osipi]

Interesting article for sure. I was able to get a link posted that worked.

Why, at 6ft 3in, Prince William towers over his titchy royal ancestors | Mail Online

Wow... I never realized that Margaret was only 5'1. We could have borrowed each other's clothes, tiaras and jewels.

[US Royal Watcher]

It is an interesting article. I've seen pictures of Diana wearing heels when she was with Charles. Several times after the separation but these pictures was obviously taken pre-1992- note Charles's hair.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...504d5ce35b.jpg

charles diana pictures - Bing Images

She generally wore lower heels in the daytime (1-2") but I think that tended to be the style during in the 80's. This is the famous picture of her before the engagement (and without Charles). She was obviously wearing lower heels--much more practical for being around the children and walking around outside.

charles diana pictures - Bing Images

I think her style improved dramatically after her separation, but I also prefer 90's fashion to 80's fashion.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Osipi

... Diana and Charles were simply marvelous together on a dance floor.

Yes indeed they were. My happiest memory of them as a couple is the two of them effortlessly and gracefully spinning around the dance floor on their first visit to Australia in the mid-80's.

[Dman]

Oh yes, Diana and Charles loved hitting the dance floor together back in the day. Charles don't dance much anymore but he can actually move.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I wonder did they never seek professional counseling during their marriage? I seem to recall Diana went for her eating disorder etc...but I wonder if they went together for marital counseling.

I think Sally Bedell Smith book, Elizabeth the Queen, describes the Queen and Prince Philip trying to provide "marriage counseling" to Charles and Diana. Their marriage probably would have been helped by professional counseling, if they had received it within the first five years or so.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher

I think Sally Bedell Smith book, Elizabeth the Queen, describes the Queen and Prince Philip trying to provide "marriage counseling" to Charles and Diana. Their marriage probably would have been helped by professional counseling, if they had received it within the first five years or so.

I agree, I think professional help is what they needed. Diana and Charles pretty much dedicated themselves to their official royal duties and being loving parents to their sons but I think they should have taken some time out and worked on their marriage.

I think marriage counseling was needed badly and I think they could've talked to the Archbishop of Canterbury too. This is just my opinion of course, but I think one of the reasons why things went so out of control, Diana and Charles weren't taking care of their personal business. They should've kicked their lovers to the side and worked on themselves and their marriage for the sake of their family and Monarchy.

[Queen Camilla]

Jephson is the source: that before meeting the Emperor & Empress of Japan Diana insisted on a pair of high heels and when her dresser gave her a pair of high heels she insisted on a pair with higher heels.

Jephson was one of many who stated that Diana needed to be coaxed prior to her royal engagements. (Don't recall names of others.)

[cinrit]

As you can see from this photo of Diana meeting the Emperor and Empress, she wore shoes with heels that look like 2 inches at the most.

http://www.princess-diana-remembered...5_-07_mked.jpg

[Pranter]

She would tower over them no matter if she went without shoes...the shoes she is wearing in the photo are regular heels IMO...certainly not high by any stretch.


LaRae

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Jephson is the source: that before meeting the Emperor & Empress of Japan Diana insisted on a pair of high heels and when her dresser gave her a pair of high heels she insisted on a pair with higher heels.
Jephson was one of many who stated that Diana needed to be coaxed prior to her royal engagements.(Don't recall names of others.)

Stephen Barry is one that states that Diana had problems with doing engagements and also doing any kind of reading prior to the engagement. IIRC, his book is called My Twelve Years As Valet to Prince Charles.

In this respect, I think we can most probably add stubborn as a trait of Diana's.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by cinrit

As you can see from this photo of Diana meeting the Emperor and Empress, she wore shoes with heels that look like 2 inches at the most.

http://www.princess-diana-remembered...5_-07_mked.jpg

They look a little higher than 2 inches but they weren't stilettos. Few women wore stilettos during the day before the 90s. Diana obviously embraced her height, which is great. It's one of the reasons she wore her clothes so well.

I have been googling pictures of her since the allegation was posted that she was forced to wear flats when around Charles. She generally wore that look like they were about 1-3 inches during the day, regardless of whether Charles was with her (most of her engagements were during the day). That changed in the 90's, but I don't know whether that was because it was becoming stylish or because she felt free to do so. She may have been the one who started the trend towards higher heels during the day.

High heels make my legs look better but they are generally not worth the sore feet--at least not at my age.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Stephen Barry is one that states that Diana had problems with doing engagements and also doing any kind of reading prior to the engagement. IIRC, his book is called My Twelve Years As Valet to Prince Charles.

In this respect, I think we can most probably add stubborn as a trait of Diana's.

Stephen Barry left fairly early in the marriage, so it may have been true at that point but changed later. Perhaps it depends on the type of engagement. It's been a long time since I have read Patrick Jephson's book (and I gave it away), is it possible he referring to joint engagements or engagements that were part of official royal family duties, as opposed to Diana charity photo ops?

I tend to believe that Diana was happy to pose with sick children, but found it boring to meet heads of state or visit a country's landmarks. Unfortunately for Diana, that was a major part of her job as Princess of Wales.

[Warren]

A few posts have been edited or removed; a larger number have been moved over to these threads:

The Panorama Interview
Charles and Diana

Warren
British Royals moderator

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by scooter

Culd you please cite your source for these statements? Diana went far and wide doing hundreds of engagements, year in year out, on behalf of the BRF

That was a comment from before her marriage and she has proven since her marriage that she is able and willing to undertake royal duties. For instance - in 2013 she carried out 263 engagements (according to my count published here weekly) and only her husband, his siblings and her mother-in-law did more.

So far this year the Sophie has done more than she has - but she has had an overseas tour and that is when many engagements are added to the overall count.

Camilla still has an overseas tour to Canada to come.

[MARG]

Any facet that shows Diana in a less than perfect light is usually followed by accusations that it is all Charles fault, or Camilla's fault or both Charles and Camilla's fault and then we must not forget that from the get go it was all Charles, or the Duke of Edinborough fault and of course, one must not forget The Queen's fault and even the Queen Mother get's the occasional look in, all of whom failed Diana by both the sins of commission and omission.

But then we are reminded again of the sins of her father, her mother, her stepfather, her brother, her sisters, etc. and then of course there is the eating disorder, and the list never ends except for those reading these forums who are left with a portrait of a sad, lonely, neglected, child/woman, forever to be remembered as the ultimate victim instead of the loving mother and strong, opinionated, self-confident woman she grew into.

[Mermaid1962]

Last evening, I was looking through my old ROYALTY magazines from the early 90s. Knowing what we know now, I find those pictures of Diana even more intriguing--mostly for what is isn't revealed. It's so hard to tell from still photos that there was so much going on under the surface. Film is a bit more revealing. It's just so astounding that a person could put on such an act of happiness and look so utterly carefree.

[Moonmaiden23]

I so agree with you Mermaid1962.

Diana was famously quoted once as saying "I've got what my mother's got...no matter how bloody I am feeling I can still go out and get on with it" or something similar. And with a few exceptions that is exactly what she did in the 80's and 90's. Uncanny.

Women who can maintain a façade have always fascinated me because I am just the opposite. I tend to wear my emotions and my heart on my sleeve no matter how hard I struggle to maintain a Jacqueline Kennedy mask of calm when I am upset...I simply can't pull it off.

[scooter]

^ Well said. I couldnt agree more.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I so agree with you Mermaid1962.

Diana was famously quoted once as saying "I've got what my mother's got...no matter how bloody I am feeling I can still go out and get on with it" or something similar. And with a few exceptions that is exactly what she did in the 80's and 90's. Uncanny. . . . .

Your quote is rather obscure and I have been attempting to track it to read it in context. However, I have been unable to locate any mention of such a famous quote.

Could you supply the reference please.

[Osipi]

I can definitely see this in Diana. Some women are just adept at hiding what is really going on with them when they're in public view and Diana was a master at it. Some people just can easily turn on, turn off, tune out things when they need to. Its an ability I really wish I had.