Different Facets of Diana

[Osipi]

From what I read, Diana could and would cut friends from her "presence" for almost as little as looking at her the wrong way. Her world truly revolved around her and I think most of her considerations were for herself in her private life but put out the caring, compassionate face when in public. Not to say she didn't do good works but it was important to her to have people around her that loved, adored, and looked up to her. It was how she maintained her own self esteem. If someone didn't suit this profile, they were gone.

 

[Dman]

The palaces chefs pretty much cook with fresh ingredients and with the best food, they're not going to prepare anything that's not good for they're bosses and the royals guests. Chances are that the food that was prepared for the Princess and Oprah was very good food and didn't do much to add to Oprah's weight problem.

Its funny how a little humours story like this has been turned around to make it look like the Princess did something wrong and insensitive to Oprah Winfery, when that wasn't the case at all.

 

[Roslyn]

The palaces chefs pretty much cook with fresh ingredients and with the best food, they're not going to prepare anything that's not good for they're bosses and the royals guests. Chances are that the food that was prepared for the Princess and Oprah was very good food and didn't do much to add to Oprah's weight problem.

Define "good" in this context. Lots of food that is considered "good" is very high in fat or carbohydrate but is delicious and desirable and just fine if eaten in moderation. Some foods are "good" in general but should be avoided by people with certain conditions, like duck or prawns which are high in cholesterol and bananas which are high in potassium and not "good" if you have hypertension. In any event, the quality of the food is not in issue here, it is the fact Diana had two different versions served and her deception when questioned about it.

Its funny how a little humours story like this has been turned around to make it look like the Princess did something wrong and insensitive to Oprah Winfery, when that wasn't the case at all.

Diana deceived Oprah, that is a fact. Some of us believe what she did was wrong and an important indicator of a facet of her personality, and others don't think it was wrong or are inclined to trivialise it. Please do not trivialise the opinions of those of us who consider it was wrong by implying that we have no valid foundation for our views. The foundation is there, it's just that some of us give different weight to the same facts.

 

[roseroyal]

I think Dman meant good as in expensive, the best on the market.
I am not intending to trivialize opinions when I say this. I respect everyone's thoughts.
I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I know Diana wasn't a saint.
She was a human being, with flaws like the rest of us. Indeed, she had a mental illness. In fact, I don't think I would admire her as much as I do, if she wasn't a human being, but a saint.
Yes she had bad qualities, such as acting unkind in private , but always being kind in public( and by the way no one is ever going to convince me that her kindness and good works towards the least fortunate or anyone she met on her charity engagements was an act). but in my opinion, she had more good than bad, and I would rather remember those. What is wrong with that?

 

[COUNTESS]

Define "good" in this context. Lots of food that is considered "good" is very high in fat or carbohydrate...

Wherever did you get the opinion that potassium is not good for people with high blood pressure? Actually, they often need more potassium because medication make them void more frequently to lower the pressure and rob them of potassium. And Prawns are high in triglycerides not in cholesterol. So while you are a great critic, of Diana, what makes you think these things are accurate?

 

[Roslyn]

Wherever did you get the opinion that potassium is not good for people with high blood pressure? Actually, they often need more potassium because medication make them void more frequently to lower the pressure and rob them of potassium. And Prawns are high in triglycerides not in cholesterol. So while you are a great critic, of Diana, what makes you think these things are accurate?

Sources such as this: Don't Mix Your Meds with These Foods | Yahoo Health and this Perindopril | Health24
And this: Top 10 Foods Highest in Cholesterol

I realise there is some controversy over the prawn issue, but since the body makes as much cholesterol as it needs without needing any help from diet, if your cholesterol levels are high then it is not wise to eat foods which are high in cholesterol.

And thank you for the compliment about being a great critic of Diana. I do my best.

 

[casualfan]

^^previous

The American Heart Association has really good information on this: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Condi...d-Pressure_UCM_303243_Article.jsp#mainContent

Too much potassium (or a buildup of potassium in the body) is called hyperkalemia, which in extreme cases may cause changes in the heart's rhythm: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/hyperkalemia-causes-symptoms-treatments

 

[Moonmaiden23]

From what I read, Diana could and would cut friends from her "presence" for almost as little as looking at her the wrong way. Her world truly revolved around her and I think most of her considerations were for herself in her private life but put out the caring, compassionate face when in public. Not to say she didn't do good works but it was important to her to have people around her that loved, adored, and looked up to her. It was how she maintained her own self esteem. If someone didn't suit this profile, they were gone.

I think the people in her private life got the brunt of her dark side, while the public was the beneficiary of her kindness and generosity. She apparently found it much easier to be be that way with anonymous strangers than to her friends and family.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Sources such as this: Don't Mix Your Meds with These Foods | Yahoo Health and this Perindopril | Health24
And this: Top 10 Foods Highest in Cholesterol

I realise there is some controversy over the prawn issue, but since the body makes as much cholesterol as it needs without needing any help from diet, if your cholesterol levels are high then it is not wise to eat foods which are high in cholesterol.

And thank you for the compliment about being a great critic of Diana. I do my best.

I bow to you, madam!

 

[Roslyn]

I bow to you, madam!

Thank you. Thank you very much. If you're going to be a critic, you want to be a great one.

 

[roseroyal]

I think the people in her private life got the brunt of her dark side, while the public was the beneficiary of her kindness and generosity. She apparently found it much easier to be be that way with anonymous strangers than to her friends and family.

You hurt the ones you love the most.
I know that when I am in a bad mood, I vent most easily on my family and friends, because I know their love and support are unconditional.

 

[Binny2]

You hurt the ones you love the most.
I know that when I am in a bad mood, I vent most easily on my family and friends, because I know their love and support are unconditional.

But Oprah was basically an acquaintance, not family or a close personal friend. Diana had a huge mean streak in her that contributed to her downfall. She felt incredible hostility towards anyone who threatened her fragile self-image. I don't think it ever occurred to her that her mean girl behavior would backfire on her one day. A prime example is the particularly nasty behavior towards Tiggy Legge-Bourke in which Diana at party accused Tiggy of aborting Charles' child. Tiggy collapsed into tears.

That lack of self-awareness and an understanding of right and wrong is for the most part missing. She lived by whether her actions satisfied her and only her and to h*** with everyone else. She had little sense of moral behavior by the time of the early 1990s. She never paused to think how her actions would harm her children. The need to humiliate the other person, usually Charles, overrode any other consideration she may have entertained. But then thinking about how vicious and cruel behavior are part of the Spencer family
IMO, she had good teachers.

I would even say that most of her charity work was dominated by a need to have positive feedback from the press and the public more than altruistic reasons. She acted like a saint-like Lady Bountiful when she was in public, but an awfull, cruel person who got off on humiliating people in private. This is evidenced by the high level of staff turnover.

 

[roseroyal]

I agree with most of what you said, not all.
I was replying to MoonMaiden, and she was discussing how Diana treated close friends and family.
She wasn't discussing how Diana treated Oprah in particular.
I agree Diana could be hostile, when she felt like he self image was being threatened. She did have a fragile self-image. Hence, bulimia etc.
I do agree that a lot of her negative behavior was learned from the Spencer's.
Without rehashing it., I think her childhood did her serious damage.
I disagree that she had a lack of self-awareness, and a lack of moral behavior, knowing what was right and wrong.
I disagree that her charity work was an act she put on, or that she did it for her image in the press alone. However, I do think she had two sides- to quote Rosa Monckton- that of a luminous being, and that of a wounded trapped animal. And she was wounded and trapped. Her friends probably saw the wounded animal side more, certainly more than we did. But they saw the luminous being side too. I read where Diana said" I am trouble with a capital T, but I never forget my friends." and I don't doubt that to be true, although she cannot have been the easiest woman to be friends with. She had a lot of them.
I do agree that she cannot have been an easy woman to work for. What she did to Tiggy was appalling.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I completely agree. I could never have successfully worked for Diana, and she is not the type of person I would have had as a friend either. The incident with Tiggy was so cruel that I hated Diana for awhile.

But I have to say that a small part of me understands why she behaved the way she did. In Diana's eyes, she had no power. It was all in the hands of Charles and his "side" as she referred to his circle, and the queen and the court. Right or wrong she felt manipulated, used, underestimated and tossed to the side by this powerful Establishment.

The only leverage she felt she had was herself. Her beauty, charisma, immense popularity in Britain and around the world. So she used what she had, and she manipulated and lied to fight back both to even the score against her powerful enemies and to build up an identity for herself.

 

[MARG]

OK, it's official. I do not understand all the "excuses". This thread is about different facets of Diana, not whether she was an angel or evil incarnet.

The food incident displayed an inexcuseably mean facet. That is all. Like everyone she had really good ones but, that is not what is under discussion. Everything negative is always being excused by her "eating disorder", "unhappy childhood", "failed marriage". You want to take a wild guess at how many people have suffered any or all of the above? They do not get a free pass because there comes a point in life when you take responsible for your own life.

Anyone here sick and tired of reading about some criminal in court using their deprived childhood as a mitigating factor for everything from the dispicable to the depraved?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Not sure what you're getting at MARG. This thread is indeed about different facets of Diana...good, bad, ugly. (occasionally very ugly indeed).
In every post I have made I have tried to strike a balance in commenting on both her good and bad qualities which, once again, is in keeping with the title of this thread.

Trying to speculate and understand why she was the way she was is not at all the same as "making excuses".

An example of making excuses would have been if I'd defended her and said it was OKAY that Diana treated people badly because she felt used, manipulated, etc.

Which is not what I did.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the Diana detractors simply want the rest of us to declare her an ogre with no redeeming qualities and be done with it.

 

[Dman]

Yeah, I hear you. I try my best to remember the good person Diana was. She wasn't a saint as the media tried to build her up as but she was human. She made her mistakes in life but she did so many great things in her role as wife, mother and Princess of Wales and future Queen.

I just hope the new generations won't look back to her as a tragic figure and who was in a failed marriage, but read about the great things she did and how she loved her two children.

 

[roseroyal]

I completely agree. I could never have successfully worked for Diana, and she is not the type of person I would have had as a friend either... But I have to say that a small part of me understands why she behaved the way she did...

I agree with you. Some of what Diana did in private was awful , and wrong to do, but I understand it, for the reasons you describe. In her shoes, I don't know if I would've acted any better. I'd like to think I would have, but I'm not sure.
Another thing I wanted to say in regards to whether what she did in public was an act or not , to the people who think it was, ask the people she helped or their families. I wonder what they would say?

 

[Osipi]

I don't think there is anyone that could ever say that the work Diana did had no impact on people's lives. Wherever she went, whatever she did in her public life drew the attention of the world and she touched the lives and hearts of many. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. I do think she cared very deeply for those that she reached out to and the causes that she took on. The public aspect of her life also gave her what she craved. The attention, admiration and loving feedback that she so desperately wanted in her private life. Individually wise, this public adoration was pretty much short lived and generic except for the occasions we read about where Diana kept in contact with various people she met over the years. Reading about her press coverage was a way to reinforce her loving public hugs and I think she began to see the press as measuring gauge of her own self esteem. Its no wonder then that at later times, she felt she could use the press to her own advantage.

 

[Mermaid1962]

IMO Diana: The Portrait is a good book to read if a person wants to understand how the Princess was valued by those she helped with her charity work. The book has many in-depth statements by those who knew her in that realm. Diana had a cruel, mean streak. I've noticed more and more after watching many videos of her on her engagements that she was often giving side-line glances to the cameras. These things are true. However, as Lord Deedes said about her after his trip with her to Bosnia, she came out of herself when dealing with the injured and survivors. She was at her absolute best, I believe, when she was outside the royal environment. She was at her worst in situations where she felt threatened.

 

[roseroyal]

I agree about Diana the portrait. Is one of my favorite books, for that reason.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

... she came out of herself when dealing with the injured and survivors. She was at her absolute best, I believe, when she was outside the royal environment. She was at her worst in situations where she felt threatened.

This...100X. That notorious Panorama interview was so cringeworthy that to this day I can't watch it from start to finish, and what I did see had me shouting SHUT UP DIANA...SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! at the television.

It was a perfect example of how she acted when she felt threatened, but she came off paranoid and even mentally unbalanced. I am convinced that that interview set her on the road to divorce, the Paris Ritz, and death. In other words she might still be alive if she hadn't done it.

But there is simply no way to deny her courage and commitment on issues she cared about, such as landmines. She could easily have been injured or blown to smithereens visiting some of the places she did. That side of Diana was as much a side of her as the cruelty, the paranoia and the mean streak.
.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Her public face was quite different from her private face.

She did not willingly do her royal duties. She threw tantrums before most engagements and had to be coaxed into them.

I think one of the best examples of her two-faced, is the tantrum she threw prior to meeting the Emperor & Empress of Japan. She insisted on a very high heels so that she could tower over the petite Emperor & Empress and then when she met them she made an over-the-top deep curtsey.

Knowing how she behaved prior to the curtsey says more than the public curtsey.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...But there is simply no way to deny her courage and commitment on issues she cared about, such as landmines. She could easily have been injured or blown to smithereens visiting some of the places she did. That side of Diana was as much a side of her as the cruelty, the paranoia and the mean streak.

First, let me assure you that Diana was not in danger of being injured or blown to smithereens--at least no more danger than any other member of the royal family or other VIP who visits war-torn areas. She was surrounded by a lot of security. When she made her famous walks to draw attention to landmines, those particular areas had been thoroughly swept--probably more than once.

Although I agree that Diana was committed to her charities and wanted to help other people, I can't think about that without remembering that she also resigned as patron for most of her charities in a snit when she lost her royal status in the divorce. She cared, but charity work wasn't the major focus of her life..

 

[scooter]

...She did not willingly do her royal duties. She threw tantrums before most engagements and had to be coaxed into them...

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... As far as the high heels, she did say after she separated from Charles, that she could now wear heels, as she had been instructed never to do so when on a joint engagements because she was already the same height as Charles.

 

[Dman]

Her public face was quite different from her private face...

Diana's heels wasn't large when she met the Emperor and Empress. Also, Diana always made a deep curtsey when greeting Kings and Queens.
Diana had a tough time with official engagements when she first came on the royal scene but over time, Diana pretty much mastered the art of conducting her official engagements and enjoyed doing them.
.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I just googled images for Diana meeting the Emperor and Empress of Japan and Dman is right. The heels don't look especially high and Diana always curtsied deeply. My knees hurt just looking at the pictures.

 

[Dman]

I just googled images for Diana meeting the Emperor and Empress of Japan and Dman is right. The heels don't look especially high and Diana always curtsied deeply. My knees hurt just looking at the pictures.

LOL, I guess Diana's athletic body allowed her to pull off those deep curtsies.

 

[Osipi]

LOL, I guess Diana's athletic body allowed her to pull off those deep curtsies.

Diana was pretty athletically built but I think I'd attribute her grace in deep curtsies to her dance training. IIRC, one thing Diana always love and took lessons in was the dance. Diana and Charles were simply marvelous together on a dance floor.

 

[scooter]

Here is an article citing Charles as being 5'9 and Diana 5' 101/2" and the towering over him/flat shoes issue News - Latest Headlines, Photos and Videos | Mail Online For some reason it only takes you to the main page, but the article to search for there is Why Prince William towers over his titchy royal ancestor. It has a graph with the heights of most prominant royals for the last few hundred years.