Diana did pay attention in class.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325274
:eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!: :eureka!:
Her teachers have shared that Diana did put forth her best effort in school but she didn't do well on examinations. As an educator I'm speculating that she had a mild learning disability. Considering the era in which she attended school, I doubt that she would have received any additional assistance. Harry, Beatrice and Rose Windsor were each diagnosed with a learning disability and received assistance during their years in school.
From the British Monarchy website
QuoteLady Diana was educated first at a preparatory school, Riddlesworth Hall at Diss, Norfolk, and then in 1974 went as a boarder to West Heath, near Sevenoaks, Kent. At school she showed a particular talent for music (as an accomplished pianist), dancing and domestic science, and gained the school's award for the girl giving maximum help to the school and her schoolfellows.
She left West Heath in 1977 and went to finishing school at the Institut Alpin Videmanette in Rougemont, Switzerland, which she left after the Easter term of 1978. The following year she moved to a flat in Coleherne Court, London. For a while she looked after the child of an American couple, and she worked as a kindergarten teacher at the Young England School in Pimlico.
Her old boarding school West Heath now serves special education students who are not well suited to being mainstreamed into a regular education classroom with typical peers.
Camilla Al Fayed: My quest to ensure Princess Diana?s old school stays a haven | Express Yourself | Comment | Express.co.uk (http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/250449/Camilla-Al-Fayed-My-quest-to-ensure-Princess-Diana-s-old-school-stays-a-haven)
As usual the comments on DM are acidic, to say the least. If Diana had a form of learning disability (such as dyslexia) then she did a very good job of hiding it in adulthood. I found her handwriting disciplined. She was no intellectual but she was not stupid either. You do not learn to play the piano like she did if there is nothing up there. I think she was very badly educated, very typical of aristocratic girls in those times. They were meant to be pretty and somewhat stupid so that they could make good wives for equally non-intellectual husbands. With the right support and reading material, I am certain Diana could hold her own in the highest circles. The self-deprecating remark about being "thick as a plank" was a preemptive defense mechanism against people who might question how inadequately she had been educated.
She failed all her exams, and her sisters who ahd the same education, passed nad did quite well academically. All of them were reared to marry rather than to go to college or have careers, yet the older girls got several O levels and Diana failed
^ We know so much more about learning difficulties of all kinds now than we did in the 1970s. I have felt for some time that Diana may have had some mild form of dyslexia that wasn't picked up at the time. As well, I don't think Diana had enormous self confidence. She didn't bloom in the schoolroom or in academic circumstances at all, whereas her sisters managed fine and her brother did well. That's all right, and happens in many families, but I think it may have given another knock to Diana's self esteem, all the same.
If there is one thing I have learnt about children, it is that they are different. Academic competence in some siblings does not mean the whole family will pass. Diana lacked confidence in her intellectual capabilities and preemptively tried to prevent criticism through self-deprecation. As a parent, you try to support the child in the things that they do best. As we all know, Diana had no problems with communication. I am sure that she would have passed an exam in that with flying colors.
The other education relating to the history of the monarchy, she took limited interest. That turned out to be one of the many things that made her life difficult at court. I would recommend that every Princess of Wales is carefully educated about the institution. I would also advise any royal consort to read about the six wives of Henry VIII. They literally provide a model of how you will end up depending on how you behave as a royal consort.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 05, 2017, 10:47:32 AM
If there is one thing I have learnt about children, it is that they are different. Academic competence in some siblings does not mean the whole family will pass. Diana lacked confidence in her intellectual capabilities and preemptively tried to prevent criticism through self-deprecation. As a parent, you try to support the child in the things that they do best. As we all know, Diana had no problems with communication. I am sure that she would have passed an exam in that with flying colors.
but she didn't pass the exams at school. And she went toa good school, not soemwehre that there were huge numbers of kids, and I'm sure there were decent teachers. perhaps she didn't try very hard, because she didn't need qualifications but it could just be that she was either lazy or not clever. and the fact that she refused to read about princesses of Wales, or at first ot "learn a bit of Welsh" saying "I've left school I'm not doing homework" suggests that she didn't try very hard at least in her younger years, to learn things. I think that iwht the remarks about learning about royal history, she was afraid of looking stupid and woud't try..
Quote from: Curryong on March 05, 2017, 10:22:36 AM
^ We know so much more about learning difficulties of all kinds now than we did in the 1970s. I have felt for some time that Diana may have had some mild form of dyslexia that wasn't picked up at the time. As well, I don't think Diana had enormous self confidence. She didn't bloom in the schoolroom or in academic circumstances at all, whereas her sisters managed fine and her brother did well. That's all right, and happens in many families, but I think it may have given another knock to Diana's self esteem, all the same.
:goodpost: Considering that her siblings used to tease her about her lack of school success I doubt that she did have much self-confidence. IMO she had normal intelligence but some form of a processing disorder that made it difficult for her to learn like other children. IMO she found her own ways to cope and mask some of those issues in order to live independently as an adult. And as others have pointed out her family's expectations were focused upon her eventual marriage. Had she been born 25 years later then she would have likely been referred to receive additional support at school. Perhaps she would have been able to pass those O levels if she'd been taught differently. We know that Beatrice and Harry were able to do so.
William and Kate will need to keep a close eye on George and Charlotte as both of their uncles were diagnosed with dyslexia. IMO having George begin pre-school has been beneficial because if he's showing signs of a delay then it can be addressed early on.
Learning disorders can be hereditary so if families are aware of them it is something to be discussed with a student's teachers. I've sat in on too many meetings in which this information is very reluctantly shared. In the U.S. programs are available to help families from a very early age if the help is requested. Early intervention can be very beneficial to students who are struggling developmentally.
One final request is to PLEASE keep kids off of electronic devices when they're young and expose them to books, singing, nursery rhymes and hands on activities!!!!
Its hard to say. I think that she had normal intelligence but was'nt all that clever. I think she found learning hard and stopped trying..and being from an upper class background they didn't push her or try and see if there were problems, either emotional or learning related. but I think that as an adult, she didn't try hard either, she would learn in "bite sized" chunks, and I think the longer she was in the royal job the more she DID try.. but her intitial reaction at being asked to learn stuff was to shy off and act like it was beneath her.
QuoteDiana had no problems with communication. I am sure that she would have passed an exam in that with flying colors.
Also if she had the opportunity to give an oral response on an exams I do believe it is possible that she could have expressed herself adequately and could have possibly passed. In fact students with diagnosed learning disabilities can ask for modifications on standardized test ie: a time extension.
Examples of Accommodations & Modifications | Smart KidsSmart Kids (http://www.smartkidswithld.org/getting-help/the-abcs-of-ieps/examples-of-accommodations-modifications/)
Double post auto-merged: March 06, 2017, 01:13:42 AM
QuoteI would also advise any royal consort to read about the six wives of Henry VIII. They literally provide a model of how you will end up depending on how you behave as a royal consort.
As fascinating as their lives were, I'd recommend reading about the consorts from a more recent era since the role of the monarch is very different than it was in Henry's time. I'm not sure if reading about an absolute monarch would be as relevant as a constitutional one if we're looking at it as a form of "Royal Consort 101."
Alexandra had been the most recent Princess of Wales when Diana married Charles, though I believe reading about the roles that Mary, Elizabeth (Queen Mother) and even Phillip played would give some insight into the expectations that the role requires.
I don't know if she'd have passed exams because she didn't seem to have much basic knowledge. I think that that was why she didn't want to read more stuff when she was a new pricness, because she knew she didn't know vyer much, even about the RF and was embarrassed at her ignorance being exposed.
I agree about the Princesses of Wales, it would be good to know a lot fo royal history but for the time being It was best I think that she should concentrate on the more recnet Princesses who were closr to her in time andi in what their role was expected to be.. ie charity work, keeping one's opinions discreetly to oneself etc. But I believe her aides tried to get her to read about Alexandra and Q Mary and she woudlnt. I honesly am not sure if there was some arrogance in her refusal to raed up, or was it mostly fear of her lack of knowledge being exposed.
At Riddlesworth Hall Diana won the Leggatt Cup for helpfulness.
At West Heath Diana learned to play the piano.
Both schools provided the education that her parents wanted for their daughters.
Diana herself said she froze up when she took exams which is why she failed. She did have a learning disability. Princess Elizabeth and PRincess Margaret (especially Margaret) did not have the best of educations themselves. Diana was expected to marry well being an aristo. Diana was excellent at music, she learned languages quickly, and did well from her first royal appearance and had the gift of relating to people. Some people with University degrees are deficient at that.
I would never ever call her ignorant.
Her husband did not have the best grades at University. In many ways I think she was brighter than Charles.
Double post auto-merged: March 10, 2017, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: amabel on March 05, 2017, 05:45:54 PM
Its hard to say. I think that she had normal intelligence but was'nt all that clever. I think she found learning hard and stopped trying..and being from an upper class background they didn't push her or try and see if there were problems, either emotional or learning related. but I think that as an adult, she didn't try hard either, she would learn in "bite sized" chunks, and I think the longer she was in the royal job the more she DID try.. but her intitial reaction at being asked to learn stuff was to shy off and act like it was beneath her.
Oh no, Diana did try hard as a royal. She wanted to succeed and she could have been merely decorative but she never stopped trying. there are entrepreneurs and inventors who did not complete school who would put University education people to shame.
Double post auto-merged: March 10, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: amabel on March 05, 2017, 11:05:27 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 05, 2017, 10:47:32 AM
If there is one thing I have learnt about children, it is that they are different. Academic competence in some siblings does not mean the whole family will pass. Diana lacked confidence in her intellectual capabilities and preemptively tried to prevent criticism through self-deprecation. As a parent, you try to support the child in the things that they do best. As we all know, Diana had no problems with communication. I am sure that she would have passed an exam in that with flying colors.
but she didn't pass the exams at school. And she went toa good school, not soemwehre that there were huge numbers of kids, and I'm sure there were decent teachers. perhaps she didn't try very hard, because she didn't need qualifications but it could just be that she was either lazy or not clever. and the fact that she refused to read about princesses of Wales, or at first ot "learn a bit of Welsh" saying "I've left school I'm not doing homework" suggests that she didn't try very hard at least in her younger years, to learn things. I think that iwht the remarks about learning about royal history, she was afraid of looking stupid and woud't try..
Diana did speak Welsh on her very first tour. So she did learn Welsh and spoke it. ANd it was well received.
Diana was a lot more intelligent than people give her credit for. Diana learned Welsh, sign language and educated herself on Aids, medical issues leprosy, heart problems, etc. Diana also educated herself on landmines and the destruction caused by them. There are many intelligent people who freeze at doing written tests but shine during oral exams. The Queens education until she became heir consisted on music lessons, art and not much else as was Margret's, it was said the Queen Mary would often speak to Crawfie about introducing more subjects. Once she became heir she but she alone studied the British constitution but Margaret did not yet the Queen is a very intelligent and respected woman.
QuoteDiana did speak Welsh on her very first tour. So she did learn Welsh and spoke it. ANd it was well received.
Yes she did speak a few sentences in Welsh but as far as I know she did not have conversational skills in the language. However if anyone has information regarding her fluency in the language I'd be interested in seeing it.
Princess Diana gives speech in Welsh (Wow!) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2sjrbK3J3k)
I believe that French was part of the curriculum at her finishing school but I recall that she struggled with acquiring it while in Switzerland and that compounded with homesickness made the experience miserable.
She did not have to converse with the people there. She was expected to say some sentences in Welsh which IMO is nothing to sneeze at. She did very well. Diana essentially was in Switzerland at a Finishing School. I don't get the put downs. She was a success as Princess of Wales and worked hard and was very proactive.
QuoteShe was expected to say some sentences in Welsh
Thank you for clarifying. Based upon your earlier post I was under the impression that you thought she had enough fluency so that she could converse with a Welsh speaker.
It is a very difficult language to learn and I can understand why Charles has only a basic knowledge of the language.
I think anybody who reads up on Diana or goes to YouTube, the nature of her using the Welsh language is well known. I was under no such impression. I said she gave a speech in Welsh not that she spoke with the people there fluently. Just how did you reach that conclusion when I never said that?
QuoteDiana did speak Welsh on her very first tour.
IMO this gives the impression that she could speak the language instead of reading a few sentences that had been written phonetically.
She spoke Welsh. It is well known that Diana gave a speech in Welsh. If you know Diana's history (which I believe you do) you would have not misinterpreted the post.
Knowing Diana's educational history I know that she read a few lines that were written for her phonetically. As someone who works with students who are learning a second language, I wouldn't say that she "spoke Welsh."
This is similar to what Diana said in her speech that day. "Thank you for inviting me to your beautiful city."
QuoteDiolch i chi am fy ngwahodd i eich dinas hardd.
However if you believe that she spoke Welsh that's fine. :)
If you want to split hairs that way. But would you say the same thing about a language teacher who says a sentence and asks a student to repeat it in a classroom to teach the language or some of those Language instruction tapes which does require repetition to get the pronunciation. I don't think Diana was that dense that she did not know what the words meant. She spoke Welsh and the press said she did and her biographers. If you want to dispute this go complain to them. Diana can't seem to win with you. Some movie stars from Europe did originally speak phonetically and yes, they learned the language that way and did become familiar with it in future roles. That is a known fact.
Actually with my career background I understand Diana's academic struggles and thought that she did the best that she could with her schooling considering that she likely had a learning disability. IMO she had normal intelligence but lacked the support necessary for her to learn like other students. If you read my posts you'll see that I've been rather understanding and positive about her in this thread.
But she did work and went into the work right away and did very well. I applaud her efforts to give that speech in Welsh and do that tour soon after the marriage.
And on this we will agree. :friends:
Double post auto-merged: March 11, 2017, 01:07:52 AM
@sandy-I'm not sure if stating that Diana "spoke Welsh" when she only read a few lines which had been phonetically written for her is an adequate example of Diana's intelligence.
IMHO the fact that Diana did learn despite having little or no extra support at school is by far a better example of her academic success than a few lines of Welsh.
Whether Diana spoke Welsh well enough to be able to communicate with Welsh speakers in a lengthy conversation I don't know. However, I suspect not. Charles went to Aberystwyth University for a short time and supposedly learned quite a bit of Welsh. Even so, I doubt very much that today he would claim to be a Welsh speaker.
In my experience 'if you don't use it you lose it' tends to be a truism where speaking other languages are concerned, whoever you are. I doubt that Charles would come across so many Welsh speakers in his everyday life that he would be comfortable in the language, even though I'm sure he has memorised a few Welsh sentences and knows the basics. That would be even more true for Diana in her years as Princess of Wales.
My belief is that Diana was of normal and average intelligence, but may have had a mild learning disability that made being in a classroom difficult for her. I think that Diana's confidence was rather shaken by this, as the disability was almost certainly undiagnosed and so she may well have thought she was less 'clever' than others. Her schooldays as she grew older were therefore not particularly comfortable ones for her.
I agree with Amabel that this unfortunately impacted on Diana's willingness to learn anything about her position as Prss of Wales from books as an adult, an aversion she masked by pretending she wasn't interested in the subjects offered.
I see so much of these aspects of Diana reflected in her son Harry. The difficulty with schoolwork, inability to pass exams, the learning disability of his which was also apparently undiagnosed for a long time, is all also there with Harry, as are the remarks made over the years about being 'thick'.
However, both Diana and her son have an emotional connection to people, who warm easily to them. They were/are both able to connect almost intuitively with those who were/are hurt or ill or feeling sad and lonely. To me, that makes them special as royals and in a way is worth more than academic achievements, valuable though those are of course.
QuoteIn my experience 'if you don't use it you lose it' tends to be a truism where speaking other languages are concerned, whoever you are. I doubt that Charles would come across so many Welsh speakers in his everyday life that he would be comfortable in the language, even though I'm sure he has memorised a few Welsh sentences and knows the basics. That would be even more true for Diana in her years as Princess of Wales.
I agree. I've read accounts of Welsh speakers trying to start up a conversation in Welsh with Charles and he'll reply back in Welsh with a few pleasantries but will eventually end the exchange with "I'm sorry but I don't understand."
@Curryong is correct because if you don't use it you will lose it. Quite likely that Phillip no longer has much command of his boyhood German or "kitchen Greek" either.
QuoteMy belief is that Diana was of normal and average intelligence, but may have had a mild learning disability that made being in a classroom difficult for her. I think that Diana's confidence was rather shaken by this, as the disability was almost certainly undiagnosed and so she may well have thought she was less 'clever' than others. Her schooldays as she grew older were therefore not particularly comfortable ones for her.
It's so frustrating for those who struggle in school and who end up believing that they are unintelligent. Diana had a quick wit along with an innate ability to converse with ease when she was among people. It's clear that she had normal intelligence.
Quote from: TLLK on March 11, 2017, 12:42:55 AM
And on this we will agree. :friends:
Double post auto-merged: March 11, 2017, 01:07:52 AM
@sandy-I'm not sure if stating that Diana "spoke Welsh" when she only read a few lines which had been phonetically written for her is an adequate example of Diana's intelligence.
IMHO the fact that Diana did learn despite having little or no extra support at school is by far a better example of her academic success than a few lines of Welsh.
She learned a few lines of Welsh, by rote... she wasn't in ANY way a "Welsh" speaker.
As for school, i don't think she had no support, I think she didn't try very hard, or possibly she DID have some kind of leanring disability.. and at the time it wasn't well known and so it wasn't picked up on. Or possibly she just wasn't geared for learning bout academic subjects and did better on practical things..
Double post auto-merged: March 11, 2017, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: Curryong on March 11, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Whether Diana spoke Welsh well enough to be able to communicate with Welsh speakers in a lengthy conversation I don't know. However, I suspect not. Charles went to Aberystwyth University for a short time and supposedly learned quite a bit of Welsh. Even so, I doubt very much that today he would claim to be a Welsh speaker.
In my experience 'if you don't use it you lose it' tends to be a truism where speaking other languages are concerned, whoever you are. I doubt that Charles would come across so many Welsh speakers in his everyday life that he would be comfortable in the language, even though I'm sure he has memorised a few Welsh sentences and knows the basics. That would be even more true for Diana in her years as Princess of Wales.
My belief is that Diana was of normal and average intelligence, but may have had a mild learning disability that made being in a classroom difficult for her. I think that Diana's confidence was rather shaken by this, as the disability was almost certainly undiagnosed and so she may well have thought she was less 'clever' than others. Her schooldays as she grew older were therefore not particularly comfortable ones for her.
I agree with Amabel that this unfortunately impacted on Diana's willingness to learn anything about her position as Prss of Wales from books as an adult, an aversion she masked by pretending she wasn't interested in the subjects offered.
I
i think it was unfortunate because she ahd a very stubborn streak, and I think that she showed that in her early years as Princess with refusign to read things. So I can see that it looked to her aides that she wasn't very clever or well educated and she wouldn't TRY to be any better.
She did speak the language in the speech. I don't get the denial of that. She did not speak English or French. So you can say language students who are starting out and speak phrases and don't really "speak" the language?! Diana did try to be better. Unlike her son William, she set out to improve her speech and was eager to learn. Diana was not the lazy lump that her detractors like to think she was.
Quote from: sandy on March 11, 2017, 12:06:30 PM
She did speak the language in the speech. I don't get the denial of that. She did not speak English or French. So you can say language students who are starting out and speak phrases and don't really "speak" the language?! Diana did try to be better. Unlike her son William, she set out to improve her speech and was eager to learn. Diana was not the lazy lump that her detractors like to think she was.
Noone is saying she was Lazy. She didn't speak the language, she leared a sentence or two and repeated it. that's not speaking it. she didn't as far as I know go on to learn more than a few phrases. if she had learned phrases and then gone on to learn more of the language tehn she would be "speaking the langague.." but she didn't.
As I mentioned to TLK some European stage stars came to the US to be in theatre and film. I read they learned English phonetically. And were able to star in theatre and film and learned English. So DIana did not have to do more than those sentences but theoretically if she moved to Wales a way she could have learned English was phonetically. When people go travel, those in other countries like to hear tourists speak their language even if they are using a phrase book.
QuoteWhen people go travel, those in other countries like to hear tourists speak their language even if they are using a phrase book.
That is true but I would not consider them to be actual speakers of those languages. IMO that implies a basic grasp of the nouns, pronouns, verb tenses and a somewhat acceptable pronunciation.
I've learned phrases in French and German to use with family members in those countries, but I would never consider myself to be a speaker of those languages.
Having taken years of Spanish I would still only consider myself to have only a rudimentary knowledge of the language. My Italian is even less proficient.
If Diana was alive today I don't know if she would have considered herself to be a Welsh speaker. I'm not even sure if Charles would think of himself as one even though he had more instruction in the language.
Quote from: sandy on March 11, 2017, 01:28:23 PM
As I mentioned to TLK some European stage stars came to the US to be in theatre and film. I read they learned English phonetically. And were able to star in theatre and film and learned English. So DIana did not have to do more than those sentences but theoretically if she moved to Wales a way she could have learned English was phonetically. When people go travel, those in other countries like to hear tourists speak their language even if they are using a phrase book.
she didn't go to wales or leanr the language. She learned a few phrases. If someone had engaged her in conversation in Welsh she woud have been completely stumped...
That is true amabel though learning a few phrases and being able to pronounce the words of such a difficult language say she didn't lack the drive to learn. The same could be said of her learning to sign Diana willingly learn to communicate with the deaf citizens she came in contact with. Diana wasn't stupid nor was she an intellectual there are many people who are extremely bright though not book smart and became successful individuals through self teaching. At the age of 20 I wouldn't have wanted to read biographies either though 10 years later I did happen to read James Pope Hennessey's bio of Queen Mary and Many bios of Queen Victoria and her daughter The Empress Frederick.
Quote from: TLLK on March 11, 2017, 03:03:51 PM
QuoteWhen people go travel, those in other countries like to hear tourists speak their language even if they are using a phrase book.
That is true but I would not consider them to be actual speakers of those languages. IMO that implies a basic grasp of the nouns, pronouns, verb tenses and a somewhat acceptable pronunciation.
I've learned phrases in French and German to use with family members in those countries, but I would never consider myself to be a speaker of those languages.
Having taken years of Spanish I would still only consider myself to have only a rudimentary knowledge of the language. My Italian is even less proficient.
If Diana was alive today I don't know if she would have considered herself to be a Welsh speaker. I'm not even sure if Charles would think of himself as one even though he had more instruction in the language.
She gave a speech in Welsh. I think you are doing some hair splitting here.
I have found that those in other countries appreciate visitors talking in their language. The English speakers know what they are saying and communicating.
Diana was not some lazy ignoramus who did not want to pitch in. She did learn those phrases and despite nervousness was approved of and applauded by the Welsh. What else is there to know?
Double post auto-merged: March 11, 2017, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: amabel on March 11, 2017, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: sandy on March 11, 2017, 01:28:23 PM
As I mentioned to TLK some European stage stars came to the US to be in theatre and film. I read they learned English phonetically. And were able to star in theatre and film and learned English. So DIana did not have to do more than those sentences but theoretically if she moved to Wales a way she could have learned English was phonetically. When people go travel, those in other countries like to hear tourists speak their language even if they are using a phrase book.
she didn't go to wales or leanr the language. She learned a few phrases. If someone had engaged her in conversation in Welsh she woud have been completely stumped...
She was assigned to give a speech. Not to talk to people in Welsh. If you see the footage, the Welsh people really took to her even though she did not converse with them in Welsh.
This is Diana's first speech as Princess of Wales on the tour of Wales undertaken in 1981. You can see hear just how much of the speech, two or three sentences, was in Welsh and how she then reverted back to English. I believe Diana learned those words of Welsh for the speech and was applauded for it. Good on her, the Welsh took her to their hearts and she reciprocated. That however does not make Diana a Welsh speaker, as in one who is comfortable and competent in that language and able to converse and follow a conversation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u97P7p2XxGg
Welsh is quite a difficult language apparently and Diana did well to learn that short excerpt in her speech. However, I had lovely Finnish friends years ago and learned quite a bit of the Finnish language from them, most of which I have forgotten. I went to the Netherlands several times when younger and found the Dutch language much easier than French. Yet, if I had been suddenly transported to any town in Finland or the Netherlands using what I knew of these languages and no English, I would have been utterly and completely lost.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Diana took Welsh language lessons, still less that she pursued learning the language till she was proficient in it. That is, in my view, being able to read the language, write it, converse in it, understand completely what is being said. It just didn't happen, heart warming though it was of Diana to use a couple of Welsh phrases in her speech.
she was praised because she did give that speech. It did endear her to the people.
Quote from: Curryong on March 12, 2017, 12:20:53 AM
This is Diana's first speech as Princess of Wales on the tour of Wales undertaken in 1981. You can see hear just how much of the speech, two or three sentences, was in Welsh and how she then reverted back to English. I believe Diana learned those words of Welsh for the speech and was applauded for it. Good on her, the Welsh took her to their hearts and she reciprocated. That however does not make Diana a Welsh speaker, as in one who is comfortable and competent in that language and able to converse and follow a conversation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u97P7p2XxGg
Welsh is quite a difficult language apparently and Diana did well to learn that short excerpt in her speech. However, I had lovely Finnish friends years ago and learned quite a bit of the Finnish language from them, most of which I have forgotten. I went to the Netherlands several times when younger and found the Dutch language much easier than French. Yet, if I had been suddenly transported to any town in Finland or the Netherlands using what I knew of these languages and no English, I would have been utterly and completely lost.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Diana took Welsh language lessons, still less that she pursued learning the language till she was proficient in it. That is, in my view, being able to read the language, write it, converse in it, understand completely what is being said. It just didn't happen, heart warming though it was of Diana to use a couple of Welsh phrases in her speech.
No, she didn't give a speech in welsh. She learned a few phrases and put them in her speech. Of course the crowd loved her, they usualy did but it was because she was sweet and pretty, not because she made a great success of saying a few words in welsh. IIRC it was suggested that she "learn a bit of Weslh" prior to her tour and she didn't want to. Just like she didn't want to read up about royal history.
I never recalled she was told to "learn a bit of Welsh" but that she had to make the speech and she did. Diana was not some mannequin she really interacted well with the people it was not just her looks.
Nobody's saying she didn't interact with people. bujt she could nto speak Weslh. learning a few sentences by rote is not speaking welsh
I think it is. I see politicians doing it. Notably Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner." Maybe he did not speak fluent German but that simple statement made a huge impact
that is not the point. Kennedy didn't speak German.... Diana didn't speak Welsh.
Quotelearning a few phrases and being able to pronounce the words of such a difficult language say she didn't lack the drive to learn
Good point
@Trudie. While she may have found learning the phrases and tackling the tricky pronunciation a challenge, she did make the effort to do it. Regarding her sign language it may have been easier for her to accomplish because as an athlete/dancer and pianist I believe that she had good fine and large motor skills.
I think it's a matter of opinion about her speaking another language. Sometimes phrases said in other languages can make a huge difference with a visiting royal or politician.
I'm quite sure that Diana and the rest of the BRF have learned the typical greetings for their various trips abroad but they'd certainly need translators for any meaningful interaction between their hosts and the public if they were not English speakers.
Apart from the Queen, (French) Brigitte (Danish), Marie Christine (German) and Michael (Russian) most of the family is limited to English with varying proficiency in French, Spanish, Italian, German and Greek. I think that William and Harry have dabbled in Swahili.
Fortunately for her and the rest of the BRF nearly every royal speaks English. :)
I don't think Will and Harry are linguists.
Probably not but likely they had to take at least a year or so of a foreign language to qualify for graduation from Eton College.
How much they retained is subject to speculation
Eton college requires its students to study the following in foreign language:
QuoteBoys arriving at Eton in F block choose two modern languages to study during their first year, and whether or not to continue with or take up classical Greek.
The modern language choice is between French, German, Spanish, Russian, Japanese and Chinese, subject to certain restrictions. Boys can also study Arabic off-timetable.
They study two of the three sciences at a time, so studying each for two full halves during their first year.
All boys are required to study each of the other subjects on offer for the number of schools (periods) shown: English (4); mathematics (4); Latin (3); science (6); two modern languages (3 each); divinity, geography and history (2 each). Music, art, drama, PE, ICT and design are studied in rotation.
F Block (http://www.etoncollege.com/f_block.aspx)
While this is the current requirement I wouldn't be surprised if those languages were still available choices when the brothers were attending Eton. However if they don't use it, then it's likely that they've only retained so much over the years.
I've read that Sophie and Edward have been studying French together. They're the current favorites for QEII to send to foreign weddings so it doesn't hurt for them to learn a little French to speak with the Belgians, Danes (Most of them speak French too.) Luxembourgers, and others.
Anyhow back to the topic of Diana and school. :)
I think she would have been pleased to see both of her sons graduate from Eton and William from St. Andrews. Also I think that she would have been proud of their passing out at Sandhurst too.
Again it's the 'use it or lose it' thing in play again. When Harry visited New Zealand last year he listened in to a German lesson that was going on at a remote school. He stated that he would quite like to learn German himself and volunteered that he had studied French at school (Eton) but could remember very little of it.
I believe William studied Spanish (useful no doubt when he visited South America for a little while in his gap year) but AFAIK hasn't spoken Spanish in public, ever. Like his brother he learned French. He made a speech in Quebec in apparently appalling French so I don't think he's a master of that language either.
Royals speaking at least two foreign languages well, including French, is one of my soap box issues. I think it's absolutely vital for members of the BRF not to rely on English everywhere they go. It gives such pleasure to others when you can speak their language. I really wish the Queen and Charles had been more insistent that the two princes, especially William as heir, should learn two other languages and keep up those skills afterwards.
As for Harry, unless he was just being polite at the school, he has lots of time to still learn German. Being able to speak a foreign language opens up a whole new world, whether you are Royal or not.
QuoteAgain it's the 'use it or lose it' thing in play again. When Harry visited New Zealand last year he listened in to a German lesson that was going on at a remote school. He stated that he would quite like to learn German himself and volunteered that he had studied French at school (Eton) but could remember very little of it.
I believe William studied Spanish (useful no doubt when he visited South America for a little while in his gap year) but AFAIK hasn't spoken Spanish in public, ever. Like his brother he learned French. He made a speech in Quebec in apparently appalling French so I don't think he's a master of that language either.
I think that I have heard William speak a little of both (Video from his time in Chile) and he does not have a good accent in either IMO.
Not surprised that both brothers took French during their time in school though Arabic, Mandarin and Japanese are also popular languages for young people to learn today.
It just goes to show that some of the old style education formulas for royals are being lost. I read somewhere that Elizabeth I spoke very many languages and was exceptional at dealing with crafty foreign diplomats. For some reason the royal family decided to stop going to school altogether yet in Henry VIII's time, education was of the utmost importance for a daughter of a king.
Diana's family was very rich and prestigious. They could have afforded virtually any education they wanted. I refuse to believe she was thick or without academic prospects. It is just that the parents did not take education that seriously. What they wanted was "good breeding stock" to marry well and give the family prestige. Had Diana been better educated, we might have gotten a lot more out of her talents over the years. Through self-education, she managed to be able to handle meetings at the highest levels. That does tell me that this was not a stupid girl, not by a long shot.
Kids have different learning styles and you as the parent have to tap into that. You don't just dismiss them as incapable at the first huddle.
Seh wasn't thick but I don't believe she was very smart either. when she was older and had free time she didn't "self educate" unless it was learning a bit about medicine when she was involved iwht Hasnat Khan. People said that she had talked about studying something when the boys were older but she did not do so. I don't tink that studying was her thing and she could only learn if it was very much geared to "bite sized pieces".
Charles also was not the brightest bulb in the room at school. He had some questionable mentors as well. Diana was smart and I think in many ways smarter than Charles. Diana was very proactive which is more than can be said for her daughter in law who had the University degree. University degrees don't necessarily make people "smarter."
QuoteIt just goes to show that some of the old style education formulas for royals are being lost. I read somewhere that Elizabeth I spoke very many languages and was exceptional at dealing with crafty foreign diplomats. For some reason the royal family decided to stop going to school altogether yet in Henry VIII's time, education was of the utmost importance for a daughter of a king.
Here is a quick summary of 20th century BRF education.
Victoria and Albert had IMO fairly rigorous educational goals for all of their children because it was possible that one or more of them would marry into a foreign royal family. They also required them to have some practical training in housekeeping and animal care. However at some point it appears that their male descendants are struggling academically ie: Prince Eddy and Prince George (later George V). With the onset of WWI and WWII the family is firmly focused upon appearing as British as possible so other than French, it seems that foreign language instruction comes to a halt.
Apparently the then Duchess of York (QEQM) does not set high academic goals for Elisabeth and Margaret. Queen Mary is apparently concerned that it is not more rigorous. Elisabeth receives additional tutoring in British history, the constitution and the role of the monarch. Margaret does not even though she is second in line.
With QEII's children they're tutored at home until about the age of 8 when they begin school in London and later are sent to boarding school with Gordonstoun for the boys and Anne at a school in Kent. Charles, Andrew and Edward all spend at least one term at Commonwealth boarding schools with ties to Gordonstoun. Charles and Edward both attend university, Anne goes to finishing school and Andrew goes straight to the Naval Academy.
@Curryong can likely fill in any gaps that I've missed in a quick overview of 20th century royal education. :thumbsup:
Double post auto-merged: March 13, 2017, 03:07:44 PM
QuoteUniversity degrees don't necessarily make people "smarter."
However gaining admission to a university does require a certain level of intelligence. Kate studied biology, chemistry and art history for her A levels and passed them all. She later graduated with honors from St. Andrews.
I believe that Diana would have been proud of her daughter-in-law's academic accomplishments. She will be the first British queen consort to have a university degree.
^ What a good all round overview, TLLK! :thumbsup:
Just a few other little titbits.
Queen Mary could speak German well, unlike her husband. Both Eddy and George had, at Queen Victoria's insistence, spent several months in Germany as young men in order to learn the language thoroughly. They came back with about the same expertise as when they had arrived! (I do wonder whether their father Edward VII did have a form of A.D.D. He just didn't seem to be able to concentrate in the classroom, was disruptive and became frustrated and angry when he couldn't understand. Having a brilliant older sister didn't help, of course.)
The Queen Mother, rather surprisingly did learn German for some years when she was young. She had had a German governess whom she subsequently wrote to throughout WW1 and beyond. George VI knew German, in fact all George and Mary's children did. I believe it was Edward VIII's favourite foreign language.
Quote from: Curryong on March 13, 2017, 03:27:11 PM
^ What a good all round overview, TLLK! :thumbsup:
Just a few other little titbits.
Queen Mary could speak German well, unlike her husband. Both Eddy and George had, at Queen Victoria's insistence, spent several months in Germany as young men in order to learn the language thoroughly. They came back with about the same expertise as when they had arrived! (I do wonder whether their father Edward VII did have a form of A.D.D. He just didn't seem to be able to concentrate in the classroom, was disruptive and became frustrated and angry when he couldn't understand. Having a brilliant older sister didn't help, of course.)
He was rather awful as a child, perhaps because of the weight of expectations on him.
^ Teddy was certainly a bit of a hoon when young. Let off the leash one afternoon while on a walking tour with other youths superintended by an earnest young clergyman, he spent a couple of hours driving a flock of sheep he'd spied in a field into a lake!
I wonder what cuased it such behaviour, I rather like Edw VII, but he was a very divided character.
I think it was probably a case of rebellion against a very regimented and supervised life. Teddy was non academic, easily bored, a people person who was rather hedonistic. He harked back, I think, to his mother's Hanoverian forebears. His father especially, very serious-minded and studious, insisted on squashing this square peg of a son into a round hole of his (Albert's) own devising.
Quote from: TLLK on March 13, 2017, 03:04:32 PM
QuoteIt just goes to show that some of the old style education formulas for royals are being lost. I read somewhere that Elizabeth I spoke very many languages and was exceptional at dealing with crafty foreign diplomats. For some reason the royal family decided to stop going to school altogether yet in Henry VIII's time, education was of the utmost importance for a daughter of a king.
Here is a quick summary of 20th century BRF education.
Victoria and Albert had IMO fairly rigorous educational goals for all of their children because it was possible that one or more of them would marry into a foreign royal family. They also required them to have some practical training in housekeeping and animal care. However at some point it appears that their male descendants are struggling academically ie: Prince Eddy and Prince George (later George V). With the onset of WWI and WWII the family is firmly focused upon appearing as British as possible so other than French, it seems that foreign language instruction comes to a halt.
Apparently the then Duchess of York (QEQM) does not set high academic goals for Elisabeth and Margaret. Queen Mary is apparently concerned that it is not more rigorous. Elisabeth receives additional tutoring in British history, the constitution and the role of the monarch. Margaret does not even though she is second in line.
With QEII's children they're tutored at home until about the age of 8 when they begin school in London and later are sent to boarding school with Gordonstoun for the boys and Anne at a school in Kent. Charles, Andrew and Edward all spend at least one term at Commonwealth boarding schools with ties to Gordonstoun. Charles and Edward both attend university, Anne goes to finishing school and Andrew goes straight to the Naval Academy.
@Curryong can likely fill in any gaps that I've missed in a quick overview of 20th century royal education. :thumbsup:
Double post auto-merged: March 13, 2017, 03:07:44 PM
QuoteUniversity degrees don't necessarily make people "smarter."
However gaining admission to a university does require a certain level of intelligence. Kate studied biology, chemistry and art history for her A levels and passed them all. She later graduated with honors from St. Andrews.
I believe that Diana would have been proud of her daughter-in-law's academic accomplishments. She will be the first British queen consort to have a university degree.
Before Gordounstound Charles started his academics at a pre-prep in Nottinghill I can't remember the name of it though. The Queen mother believed that all Elizabeth and Margaret need to know was music, art and how to keep a home. For Elizabeth however that changed when she became the heir but Queen Mary spoke to Crawfie and the girls were then taken on trips, The Tower, The rails, Museums etc and both were taught French.
Going back to Queen Victoria's children all of them were very bright Vicky being exceptional but Bertie was subjected to a very harsh and regimented way of learning as devised by Prince Albert that was not suited to his way of learning and he rebelled. George V however and his brother Eddy were enrolled in the military at a very young age I don't believe they were barely in their teens when they shipped out. I remember reading in a book that Victoria and Albert spoke German at home and Victoria was quoted as saying the German element of our home is to be kept up and cherished so I am sure all the children spoke German.
@Trudie and
@Curryong-Thank you ladies for helping to fill in the missing information regarding BRF education.
I'd not realized that George V and Mary's children were German speakers too. I was even more surprised to read that QEQM also was able to converse in that language as well.
Quote from: TLLK on March 13, 2017, 03:04:32 PM
QuoteIt just goes to show that some of the old style education formulas for royals are being lost. I read somewhere that Elizabeth I spoke very many languages and was exceptional at dealing with crafty foreign diplomats. For some reason the royal family decided to stop going to school altogether yet in Henry VIII's time, education was of the utmost importance for a daughter of a king.
Here is a quick summary of 20th century BRF education.
Victoria and Albert had IMO fairly rigorous educational goals for all of their children because it was possible that one or more of them would marry into a foreign royal family. They also required them to have some practical training in housekeeping and animal care. However at some point it appears that their male descendants are struggling academically ie: Prince Eddy and Prince George (later George V). With the onset of WWI and WWII the family is firmly focused upon appearing as British as possible so other than French, it seems that foreign language instruction comes to a halt.
Apparently the then Duchess of York (QEQM) does not set high academic goals for Elisabeth and Margaret. Queen Mary is apparently concerned that it is not more rigorous. Elisabeth receives additional tutoring in British history, the constitution and the role of the monarch. Margaret does not even though she is second in line.
With QEII's children they're tutored at home until about the age of 8 when they begin school in London and later are sent to boarding school with Gordonstoun for the boys and Anne at a school in Kent. Charles, Andrew and Edward all spend at least one term at Commonwealth boarding schools with ties to Gordonstoun. Charles and Edward both attend university, Anne goes to finishing school and Andrew goes straight to the Naval Academy.
@Curryong can likely fill in any gaps that I've missed in a quick overview of 20th century royal education. :thumbsup:
Double post auto-merged: March 13, 2017, 03:07:44 PM
QuoteUniversity degrees don't necessarily make people "smarter."
However gaining admission to a university does require a certain level of intelligence. Kate studied biology, chemistry and art history for her A levels and passed them all. She later graduated with honors from St. Andrews.
I believe that Diana would have been proud of her daughter-in-law's academic accomplishments. She will be the first British queen consort to have a university degree.
She may well have been proud. But it does not necessarily mean she is "smarter" than Diana. She did not use the degree and spent the years waiting for William doing sporadic work. Had Diana lived he might have gone to another University and not even have met Kate. I doubt she'd have been pleased with William and Kate not doing much work and limiting charities mostly to sports.
I think Kate got a degree in MRS. She had to ask what Faberge eggs were when on a royal apearance.
QuoteShe had to ask what Faberge eggs were when on a royal apearance.
No, actually what she asked the Queen was if the Royal Collection had Faberge eggs that were from the recent collection created by Carl Faberge's descendants which was relaunched in 2010. The Queen's art historian then informed the Queen that the family had indeed begun creating new ones. If you watch the entire video you can see the Queen's expression change when her own historian relays the news to her.
@sandy-Admission to a university requires that applicants demonstrate that they have the academic background and the aptitude to undertake the classes to obtain a degree. Kate demonstrated that by passing her three A level aka advanced classes in biology, chemistry and art history along with submitting her grades. She then was able to graduate with a Masters of Arts honors degree in four years. We all know that Diana could not pass her O or ordinary levels on two occasions. IMO this is due to a mild learning disability. Without passing her O levels her employment opportunities were going to be limited to those positions that did not require that applicants to have completed those requirements. In the U.S. that would mean that she had graduated from high school or had passed an exam.
As much as I admire Diana she did not have the academic background and abilities needed to gain admission to a university and to succeed. I'll grant that she clearly had emotional intelligence and an incredible ability to relate to others though. She had normal intelligence but her academic record is no where close to her daughter-in-law's.
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 01:02:51 AM
Fabergé Will Release Its First Set Of Jeweled Eggs Since The 1917 Russian Revolution - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/faberge-unveils-first-new-eggs-since-the-1917-revolution-2011-7)
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 01:03:39 AM
The article above shares that Fabrege had relaunched and was releasing new eggs in 2011.
The Queen did not major in Art History. Kate did which makes her not knowing what they were odd. We are talking Kate here.
Going to Uni is not uncommon anymore. Many people do well in school enough to go to University. There are women who actually used their degrees. Kate got hers in MRS IMO. Throwing Diana under a bus to try to elevate Kate does not work for me. Diana was a smart woman and did more in her brief lifetime than perhaps Kate can only dream of. There are entrepreneurs who did not go to Universities who are world famous and put some graduates to shame. As an aristo, Diana was expected to marry well and help run a household. She ended up marrying the Prince of Wales. Diana had the background and breeding to marry the Prince of Wales. If Charles wanted a University graduate he would have had his pick at Cambridge when he studied there. Kate's "academic record" did not make her a worker or proactive but IMO rather workshy. Diana had much better public speaking skills than her thirty something son and daughter in law have now.
I would not look down on those without degrees; these achievers have done what Kate can only dream of doing.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1988080_1988093_1988082,00.html
Wildly successful people who dropped out of high school - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/wildly-successful-people-who-dropped-out-of-high-school-2015-9/#philip-emeagwali-dropped-out-at-13-6)
@sandy-Kate knew that they were Fabrege eggs. What she asked HM was if they were from the new collection. HM didn't know that there were new ones being produced. That's when HM's curator stepped in to inform her that the Fabrege family had begun producing a new line of eggs. Kate as an art history major would be aware of these major production events in the art world.
I am well aware that there are many people who succeed without a university degree.
QuoteThrowing Diana under a bus to try to elevate Kate does not work for me
How was Diana "thrown under a bus?" :blink:
I have not said anything unkind about Diana in any of these replies. :shrug:
Kate did not step in and answer. Why would the curator have to explain?
I do wonder why there is an attempt to make Diana "inferior" to Kate because she did not have a degree?
HM looked at her curator in the video and he concurred with Kate. HM learned something new about Fabrege eggs that day.
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 01:20:09 AM
Quote from: sandy on March 14, 2017, 01:16:38 AM
Kate did not step in and answer. Why would the curator have to explain?
I do wonder why there is an attempt to make Diana "inferior" to Kate because she did not have a degree?
@sandy-No one is trying to make Diana "inferior." This is a thread about "How did Diana do in school?" Of course we are going to discuss her academic record. You brought Kate into the discussion.
Quote****
Posts: 23,683
Activity:
100%
Personal Message (Online)
Re: How did Diana do in school?
« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2017, 08:03:27 PM »
Say Thanks
Quote
Charles also was not the brightest bulb in the room at school. He had some questionable mentors as well. Diana was smart and I think in many ways smarter than Charles. Diana was very proactive which is more than can be said for her daughter in law who had the University degree. University degrees don't necessarily make people "smarter."
My point is that someone with a degree is not "superior" than one who does not. It depends on what they do with their lives. There are some who were high school drop outs who achieved great things and were smart people. This thread title seems to bring out negativity about Diana not considering the years after she went to school. Her life did not freeze at that point.
^^^As far as I can tell not one person has said that a person with a university degree is superior. However one of the many reasons why students are encouraged to graduate from high school and consider post-secondary school education is that most employers require at least a high school diploma. In today's economy often times an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree is now necessary. Those who do not graduate from high school are limited when it comes to job prospects.
^ I don't think either of Diana's sisters or her parents went to university either. Of course, in Frances's day few women did, and because there was money in the Roche family she didn't have to work.
However, poor old Johnny Spencer wasn't overly intellectual either, though apparently very likeable. His father, with whom he didn't get on, put him in the army. He later farmed. So, apart from her younger brother, Diana wasn't raised in a family where it was taken for granted that you went on to university after school. Both Jane and Sarah apparently worked on the editorial staff of a Society magazine though, so I suppose they had careers of sorts.
Quote from: TLLK on March 14, 2017, 03:41:17 AM
^^^As far as I can tell not one person has said that a person with a university degree is superior. However one of the many reasons why students are encouraged to graduate from high school and consider post-secondary school education is that most employers require at least a high school diploma. In today's economy often times an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree is now necessary. Those who do not graduate from high school are limited when it comes to job prospects.
I've never understood people who claim the trades are better or that an education is a waste of time. Because, without a BA/BSc you wouldn't find entry level work or internships and will be left with minimum wage jobs that honestly do not pay well. Now with the trades unless you own a business you won't really live that comfortably and working conditions are hard. Plus most factory jobs and mechanical work is being taken over by machinery, so that's not going to be viable in the next 5-10 years. A degree opens doors, now I'm willing to openly state gender studies isn't valuable nor are most of the humanities but some are definitely more worthwhile than others and the importance of post secondary education should be emphasised.
Speaking of Kate she went to university to socialize, that's all.
Quote from: Curryong on March 14, 2017, 04:30:47 AM
^ I don't think either of Diana's sisters or her parents went to university either. Of course, in Frances's day few women did, and because there was money in the Roche family she didn't have to work.
However, poor old Johnny Spencer wasn't overly intellectual either, though apparently very likeable. His father, with whom he didn't get on, put him in the army. He later farmed. So, apart from her younger brother, Diana wasn't raised in a family where it was taken for granted that you went on to university after school. Both Jane and Sarah apparently worked on the editorial staff of a Society magazine though, so I suppose they had careers of sorts.
I would be willing to be that if any of the Spencer girls had demonstrated that they were capable of winning an academic scholarship that it would have raised eyebrows among the aristocracy because I have the distinct impression that women were not supposed to be "brainy." As I recall the Spencers were starting to have some financial issues so quite likely they were only interested in sending Charles off to university.
Didn't one or both of the sisters work for Vogue?
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 04:54:44 AM
@Curryong and @Trudie_Found this information from a few years ago which reviews the academic records of QEII, DoE, PoW, PR, DoY, EoW, DoCam, Peter, Zara, and PB.
The family qualifications - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531553/The-family-qualifications.html)
Interesting, TLLK, if a little unfair to Prince Philip. Although this list concentrates of course on educational achievements, degrees and so on, wouldn't Philip have sat any exams in the course of his naval career, or indeed have had to pass one in the late 1930's to actually enter the Royal Navy?
I have to say it's a rather underwhelming list of achievements compared to other royal Houses. I think the BRF were late starters in taking education seriously.
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 06:38:24 AM
careers/plumbers-electricians-australias-richest-tradies-charging-more-than-the-average-lawyer/news-story/4fee7c5920ff4624e53c5ca20f99e3cb
I agree with your points about getting a degree under your belt, TLLK. However, here in Oz,....see above link.
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 06:52:11 AM
Sorry, huge apologies mods, my iPad is playing up. This link shows average earnings of electricians and plumbers in Aus compared to lawyers and other professionals.
Check your pay against a tradie (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/plumbers-electricians-australias-richest-tradies-charging-more-than-the-average-lawyer/news-story/4fee7c5920ff4624e53c5ca20f99e3cb)
To me a university degree merely tells us that a person is disciplined and organized enough to attend classes and complete exams. It tells us very little about their ultimate achievements in life. At post-grad, we be begin to note the industry experts and academicians. As Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have shown us, a degree can be overrated. I am convinced that Diana was not unintelligent. She may not have had the discipline or application, but the brain was definitely working. For example in the Panorama Interview, she remembered her words very well and delivered them with the polish of an accomplished actress. A stupid person would have faltered.
QuoteInteresting, TLLK, if a little unfair to Prince Philip. Although this list concentrates of course on educational achievements, degrees and so on, wouldn't Philip have sat any exams in the course of his naval career, or indeed have had to pass one in the late 1930's to actually enter the Royal Navy?
I have to say it's a rather underwhelming list of achievements compared to other royal Houses. I think the BRF were late starters in taking education seriously
Yes I agree on all accounts. It is a shame that there is little acknowledgement of his Naval training. Regarding the BRF and their education there does appear to be a gap between them and the other royal houses. Of QEII's peers I believe that all of them have a university degree. (I was surprised that Carl Gustav has one considering his learning disabilities.) Among Charles' equals, I believe that all of the heirs have them as well.
Quote from: Curryong on March 14, 2017, 04:30:47 AM
^ I don't think either of Diana's sisters or her parents went to university either. Of course, in Frances's day few women did, and because there was money in the Roche family she didn't have to work.
However, poor old Johnny Spencer wasn't overly intellectual either, though apparently very likeable. His father, with whom he didn't get on, put him in the army. He later farmed. So, apart from her younger brother, Diana wasn't raised in a family where it was taken for granted that you went on to university after school. Both Jane and Sarah apparently worked on the editorial staff of a Society magazine though, so I suppose they had careers of sorts.
Frances was quite young when she married. She was encouraged to marry well.
Double post auto-merged: March 14, 2017, 01:31:52 PM
Quote from: tiaras on March 14, 2017, 04:33:32 AM
Quote from: TLLK on March 14, 2017, 03:41:17 AM
^^^As far as I can tell not one person has said that a person with a university degree is superior. However one of the many reasons why students are encouraged to graduate from high school and consider post-secondary school education is that most employers require at least a high school diploma. In today's economy often times an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree is now necessary. Those who do not graduate from high school are limited when it comes to job prospects.
I've never understood people who claim the trades are better or that an education is a waste of time. Because, without a BA/BSc you wouldn't find entry level work or internships and will be left with minimum wage jobs that honestly do not pay well. Now with the trades unless you own a business you won't really live that comfortably and working conditions are hard. Plus most factory jobs and mechanical work is being taken over by machinery, so that's not going to be viable in the next 5-10 years. A degree opens doors, now I'm willing to openly state gender studies isn't valuable nor are most of the humanities but some are definitely more worthwhile than others and the importance of post secondary education should be emphasised.
Speaking of Kate she went to university to socialize, that's all.
In today's day and age it is not uncommon anymore for people to get college degrees. I agree that Kate used it to socialize primarily, she chose a major in art history not physics or math.
That said, people learning a trade can make a lot of money. But for some that does not eliminate the possibility of them getting a college degree as well.
QuoteTo me a university degree merely tells us that a person is disciplined and organized enough to attend classes and complete exams
Apologies for going off topic. My father had a decades long career in Human Resources and when he screened potential candidates he took this into consideration as well. He also would inquire about their other activities while in college. Did they have a part time job? Did they belong to a sports team, Greek organization, club, student government etc...anything that demonstrated that they could "multi-task." Sometimes he did not select the applicant with the highest GPA if all they had done was go to class but had not participated in any other activity.
It all depends. Each case is different. Kate did not have to go on job interviews since she did not use her degree. She got sporadic part time work with her parents and at Jigsaw where the proprietor said she had very flexible hours and her co-workers confirmed this.
QuoteKate did not have to go on job interviews since she did not use her degree.
From what I have read she did interview with various galleries in London but positions in that field are not easy to come by. Also a few years after graduation the world wide economic down turn affected this industry like many others.
There is no evidence of this. If she had wanted a gallery job I believe doors would have been kicked open for her to join. Camilla's daughter got gallery job. I don't think she even tried. She was not working for 18 months until there were rumors the Queen asked what Kate "did". Then she got the job in Jigsaw with very flexible hours, I recall she got a compassionate leave when she and William broke up and never went back after she got back together with him. There were rumors that she was going to start a baby clothing on but nothing came of that. I think it was smoke and mirrors. As William's girlfriend if she had really wanted a gallery job she would have gotten one. Easily. She was riding on excuses for years. Kate's parents despite any economic downturn appeared to have enough money to support their daughter until she got the ring. She could not live on money from those part time jobs.
On this we'll have to agree to disagree
@sandy.
To steer us back on topic I was thinking about Diana post-finishing school. She had her odd jobs with housecleaning, baby-sitting, and as a part-time helper at Young England nursery school. The school continues to exist. Young England Kindergarten - Home (http://youngenglandkindergarten.co.uk/)
If she had not wanted to marry at a young age, where could she have been employed full time?
Diana did not start off clever, she was very innocent and naive, but man she trounced the lot of them - because IMO it came from her kind heart.
Never to be seen again. Sadly.
Now we have a fake and her hubby who are grabbing stuff like there is no tomorrow.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 14, 2017, 09:42:12 AM
To me a university degree merely tells us that a person is disciplined and organized enough to attend classes and complete exams. It tells us very little about their ultimate achievements in life. At post-grad, we be begin to note the industry experts and academicians. As Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have shown us, a degree can be overrated. I am convinced that Diana was not unintelligent. She may not have had the discipline or application, but the brain was definitely working. For example in the Panorama Interview, she remembered her words very well and delivered them with the polish of an accomplished actress. A stupid person would have faltered.
She can memorise speeches, she probably had as many retakes as were necessary. I don't say she was stupid but I don't know if she was very intelligent either.
QuoteDiana did not start off clever,
I believe it was Mr. Edwards the well known royals photographer who pointed out that Diana was very clever in his opinion. When he was trying to take photos of Diana and Charles fishing at the River Dee, he observed she pulled out her compact mirror to track his movements and to avoid him photographing her face.
Double post auto-merged: March 15, 2017, 10:54:10 PM
https://books.google.com/books?id=5pPyJZ-ANd4C&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=charles+and+diana+fishing+at+dee&source=bl&ots=ri59wcUUOo&sig=7jxGI4TPunA11-PBxlFL4ZtNwEM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij2t3izNnSAhXJiVQKHSAvAGgQ6AEITDAN#v=onepage&q=charles%20and%20diana%20fishing%20at%20dee&f=false
Double post auto-merged: March 15, 2017, 10:54:50 PM
Here is an excerpt from Andrew Mortona's book describing the day.
Interesting interaction with photographer. Just goes to show you that even at a relatively young age, Diana was no naive amateur when it came to dealing with the press. A person who is not clever could not have achieved and done what Diana did.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 16, 2017, 04:48:18 AM
Interesting interaction with photographer. Just goes to show you that even at a relatively young age, Diana was no naive amateur when it came to dealing with the press. A person who is not clever could not have achieved and done what Diana did.
quick witted ins't necessarily clever. Diana didn't have te discipline nor IMO the mental furniture to study anything in depth...
If Diana were not intelligent, she would have fumbled all the years she was in the royal family. She was a smart young woman and in many ways smarter than Charles. I think she had the discipline to succeed at her role and she did not just walk up to a microphone with no preparation. She got public speaking lessons and realized unlike William that her speech could use improvement.
Public speaking is not an indicator of intelligence... and in any case Diana's public speaking was never considered very good...
Quote from: sandy on March 16, 2017, 12:15:52 PM
If Diana were not intelligent, she would have fumbled all the years she was in the royal family. She was a smart young woman and in many ways smarter than Charles. I think she had the discipline to succeed at her role and she did not just walk up to a microphone with no preparation. She got public speaking lessons and realized unlike William that her speech could use improvement.
Both mother and sons public speaking performances have evolved over time. IMO William and Harry have greatly improved over the past few years as they've delivered more public addresses.
Not that its any indication of her intelligecnce or lack of it, I don't think she was ever considered to have improved beyond a certain point. She gota bit more confident, but she always sounded "over produced" in her speeches. however the content certainly improved as she got more into her work and learned more about issues.
The point is not just about public speaking. Diana was willing to learn and improve her work skills as a royal and did so. I don't see the same willing to learn in her sons. I don't think she was overproduced. Her eldest son keeps using er ums and ahs in his speeches. I guess he does not think he needs improvement.
Double post auto-merged: March 17, 2017, 02:40:05 AM
Quote from: TLLK on March 16, 2017, 09:26:53 PM
Quote from: sandy on March 16, 2017, 12:15:52 PM
If Diana were not intelligent, she would have fumbled all the years she was in the royal family. She was a smart young woman and in many ways smarter than Charles. I think she had the discipline to succeed at her role and she did not just walk up to a microphone with no preparation. She got public speaking lessons and realized unlike William that her speech could use improvement.
Both mother and sons public speaking performances have evolved over time. IMO William and Harry have greatly improved over the past few years as they've delivered more public addresses.
I think Harry seems more confident in his speeches. William still is awkward and admitted he did not prepare for some of his appearances.
QuoteHer eldest son keeps using er ums and ahs in his speeches[/quote
It is funny how we all can perceive things. I was just watching some old videos of Diana, William, Harry, Charles and QEII today. When I listen and watch William give a speech, I see and hear Diana (with a lower voice.) Their facial expressions, pauses, pronunciation and body language are very similar. When I hear and see Harry he's a bit more like his grandmother QEII IMO. Though he tends to grip the podium and she doesn't. I find that QEII's and Harry's speech patterns are similar. '
Oh well...my favorite BRF speakers are Andrew and especially Edward. You can see how Edward has put his drama training to use when he speaks.
^ Gosh, I can't see the similarities in Harry and the Queen when public speaking at all. The Queen reads her speeches from notes and glances down at them on every few words. She's a wonderful Queen but a very poor orator, with not much emotion in her voice when she speaks, IMO. Charles is a much more confident and interesting public speaker than his mother I believe.
I think Harry's had professional training in the last few years. He used to display obvious signs of nervousness when speaking publicly but has improved tremendously over the last couple of years. He memorises some of his speeches, which the Queen never does, and on several occasions has had a mike in hand and walked around the stage talking to the audience.
I have never seen the Queen do that, nor for that matter William or Kate. Both the Cambridges tend to recite speeches rather woodenly as if by rote, and um and er, though Kate has certainly improved since the days when she used to flick her hair around during a speech.
Quote^ Gosh, I can't see the similarities in Harry and the Queen when public speaking at all.
There is something in the cadence and rhythm to their speaking that I find similar. Don't know any other way to describe it.
I agree that Charles' style is different from his sons.
I have this theory that Charles and Anne have pronunciation and speaking style that is distinctly different from their younger siblings Andrew and Edward. IMO television has influenced the younger ones more.
IF you see the Matt Lauer interview from 2007 and other interviews later with the boys. Harry speaks more confidently and clearer. William seems to swallow his words. Charles studied theatre and performed in plays at his University so he got speech practice and lessons back then.
Quote from: Curryong on March 17, 2017, 12:33:25 PM
^ Gosh, I can't see the similarities in Harry and the Queen when public speaking at all. The Queen reads her speeches from notes and glances down at them on every few words. She's a wonderful Queen but a very poor orator, with not much emotion in her voice when she speaks, IMO. Charles is a much more confident and interesting public speaker than his mother I believe.
I . He memorises some of his speeches, which the Queen never does, and on several occasions has had a mike in hand and walked around the stage talking to the audience.
I
NO I don't think the queen's a great speaker either, considering her experience.. it isn't IMO a sign of intelligence.. its a knack that can be improved by training. Diana didn't have the knack, though she did improve with training and practice.
but the topic here is how well she idd at school and she didn't do well at school. I am not sure, really if it was due to a mild leanring disability, or if it was due to a lack of willingness to work, or simply that she wasn't all htat clever and didn't learn much and then got more and more reluctant to try. Or I think most likely she wasn't stupid but she wasn't highly intelligent either, and she was during her teens unhappy with her family, and coped by focussing narrowly on certain things.. (which I think was a pattern in hr later life) and because of that she didn't do well at school. Perhaps with counselling at the time, she would have learned more and then not felt "thick as a plank" and been willing to study and learn when she became Princess of W. I think that her refusal to read much when she was "learning the job" as Princess, was due to a mixture of embarrassment that she didn't know a lot and feared having her ignorance exposed, and perhaps a bit of arrogance as she realised that she was naturally good at chating to people and felt that she didn't have to do any more to win the public's affection..
Diana was a natural in meeting and greeting people on appearances. I don't consider Charles intelligent and he did not have the greatest grades. Diana used the term "thick as a plank" to a little girl trying to put her at ease. She did not mean she REALLY was. That should not be held against her considering the way she used the term. Diana was not "ignorant" nor "arrogant." People catch on when public figures are "arrogant." Diana was not "arrogant" nor ever had that charge leveled against her.
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2017, 02:21:14 PM
Diana was a natural in meeting and greeting people on appearances. I don't consider Charles intelligent and he did not have the greatest grades. Diana used the term "thick as a plank" to a little girl trying to put her at ease. She did not mean she REALLY was. That should not be held against her considering the way she used the term. Diana was not "ignorant" nor "arrogant." People catch on when public figures are "arrogant." Diana was not "arrogant" nor ever had that charge leveled against her.
well if you don't think Charles is intelligent, I don't see how you can think Diana was, when she didn't even pass the basis school exams.
and yes people did think that Diana was arrogant. They might not have literally used that word but many people thought that she had come to think of herself as more speicail than the rest of the RF because she was popular.
Interesting take
@amabel. I tend to think Diana had a good brain (whatever that means) but it was not fully exploited by a disciplined formal education and thorough training. Princess Michael of Kent once did an interview in which she commented that Diana was a good person but her problems started when she began to believe her own publicity. Apparently Princess Michael surmised that Diana never learnt to deal with "eulogy" because she did not have a strict mother to reign her in. The press played their part by always exaggerating her successes and minimizing those of the rest of the royal family. You would have to be a saint not to begin to resent that, especially if the recipient of the adulation would have been nothing without you.
I can see the press trying to do the same with William and Kate but Kate has the benefit of a very involved mum and a very good education. Therefore she can tell the difference between exaggerated eulogy and her own role within an old institution. Diana was very poorly served by her upbringing and it showed later in life. A classic case in point is where she imagined that because she was popular in the tabloids, she could solve the Irish question by "knocking heads together". That was just delusional and showed that the poor woman did not know how to tell the difference between flattery and fact. Nevertheless she was improving. The shy and ignorant girl of the 1980s had become a polished celebrity in the 1990s. The old ghosts and inadequacies were there but she was getting better by the day. Had her life been longer, she might even have gotten a new professional calling after the divorce.
^ I love the way that you put Princess Pushy as an example of a lecturer on Diana's failings! If ever a minor Royal had illusions about herself and loved publicity it's that woman! A woman obsessed with her ancestry, back to Charlemagne you know, and practically purrs when she got interviewed about her books (plagiarism, anyone!) Didn't the Queen say laughingly of Princess Michael 'She's too grand for us!' Prss Michael was hardly the team player that she accused Diana of not being in her heyday. In fact IMO Prss Michael loved and loves any limelight she got/gets.
Princess Pushy never had one scrap of the love bestowed on Diana by the British public, and, as for Kate, the Press were hoping for the good old days back with a Diana Mark2. Unfortunately for them Kate is not elegant, not warm with others, is wooden on engagements and is certainly not charismatic.
What's more, I believe Carole was ambitious for her daughter to marry William, a future King, and did her utmost to for nearly a decade make it happen. I certainly don't think Carole is priming her daughter to be a team player among the RF. I think she enjoys all the publicity Kate receives.It's William who keeps his wife firmly in place and doesn't want to be outshone, IMO.
Kate has the advantage at the moment of being the sole female among the senior ranks of the BRF that is under forty. If/when Harry marries she might have to look to her laurels, have to actually say something in speeches beside platitudes and inanities, have to learn to deliver speeches in a natural manner, make smalltalk beyond what toys George likes, and might have a sister in law who has the tabloids talking about something other than hats and coats and hair. I'm looking forward to it!
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 19, 2017, 10:22:17 AM
Interesting take @amabel. I tend to think Diana had a good brain (whatever that means) but it was not fully exploited by a disciplined formal education and thorough training.have to be a saint not to begin to resent that, especially if the recipient of the adulation would have been nothing without you.
I can see the press trying to do the same with William and Kate but Kate has the benefit of a very involved mum and a very good education. Therefore she can tell the difference between exaggerated eulogy and her own role within an old institution. Diana was very poorly served by her upbringing and it showed later in life. A classic case in point is where she imagined that because she was popular in the tabloids, she could solve the Irish question by "
I don't think that the press gives kate all that much adulation, nothing like what there was for Diana. She doesn't have the magic factor that Di had, nor are the press as deferential now.
I don't think that Di had "a good brain", exactly. I think she ahd normal intelligence, but POSSIBLY, I'm not sure, on the "lower average" side of normal. ANd because she wasn't pushed at school by her parents or teachers, and was let "sit in class and dream" I think, she didn't develop her brain at all. So she came to adulthood with very little mental furniture and then she found ti hard to learn even the not very intellectually demanding stuff that the royal staf felt she should know, to do her job as Princess. and I think that she was embarrassed by her lack of knowledge and refused to read up things because she (perhaps_) felt she could do without it, or because she didn't want the lack of knowledge to be exposed and commented on.
I don't really think her mother or father were much good as parents, but I think that she was let do as she chose a bit too much because botht parents were selfish. Frances SK AND JOhnny Spencer both enjoyed the Publicity they got as parents of the beloved Princess Diana, and didn't really see that they had let her grow up without much discipline or education.
I think that luckly Diana was quick witted, and realised that the job was more interesting if she DID learn ab it more about the charities etc that she worked with, but she still tended to require taking in the info in "bite sized pieces". She didn't have the ability or wish to learn in depth. and she was again luckily self disicplined up to a point, in that she DID do her paperwork promptly, turned up to her engagements on time, had a knack of talking to people and good manners.
but I agree that the Press did exaggerate her smallest achievements and made her a bit exalted in her belief that she had "special powers"...
Re Kate I dotn think she gets that sort of adulation and she's absorbed in her family and her own life, so she's not as prone to read the papers and believe her own publicity...
I think Dianas Dad was joyous over his daughter marrying the Prince of Wales. Frances was a bit more wary-she cooperated with a biographer and gave her recollections. She was not that thrilled with Charles, but kept her misgivings to herself because she said it was 'time' Diana got married.
Diana was not 'below' any level. the young woman was raised to marry well. I think given her schooling, she did remarkably well. She went right into royal duties.
I don't think William and Kate are exactly geniuses. she majored in art history not rocket science and did not really get out on her own and was supported by her parents who could afford to do this so she would be on call for Prince WIlliam. William's emotional intelligence IMO is lacking, he does think himself above criticism since he is surrounded by sycophants and flatterers and I think he has the arrogance his father has.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 19, 2017, 10:22:17 AM
Interesting take @amabel. I tend to think Diana had a good brain (whatever that means) but it was not fully exploited by a disciplined formal education and thorough training. Princess Michael of Kent once did an interview in which she commented that Diana was a good person but her problems started when she began to believe her own publicity. Apparently Princess Michael surmised that Diana never learnt to deal with "eulogy" because she did not have a strict mother to reign her in. The press played their part by always exaggerating her successes and minimizing those of the rest of the royal family. You would have to be a saint not to begin to resent that, especially if the recipient of the adulation would have been nothing without you.
I can see the press trying to do the same with William and Kate but Kate has the benefit of a very involved mum and a very good education. Therefore she can tell the difference between exaggerated eulogy and her own role within an old institution. Diana was very poorly served by her upbringing and it showed later in life. A classic case in point is where she imagined that because she was popular in the tabloids, she could solve the Irish question by "knocking heads together". That was just delusional and showed that the poor woman did not know how to tell the difference between flattery and fact. Nevertheless she was improving. The shy and ignorant girl of the 1980s had become a polished celebrity in the 1990s. The old ghosts and inadequacies were there but she was getting better by the day. Had her life been longer, she might even have gotten a new professional calling after the divorce.
Actually I think Kate;s mum was a bit too involved. She also supported Kate for years so Kate did nothing really on her own with just sporadic jobs. This is not a role model for young women today. Kate truly did not utilize her University degree.
Diana was not "ignorant." Diana was popular in the tabs. Like other human beings, she could misread attitudes. Charles does that and he is supposedly "better" educated. Charles was always surrounded by flatterers and sycophants and listening to them caused him sometimes to be very wrong.
Kate does not have it "right" about her role. She does little and always had a poor work ethic.
how does the fact that she was popular with the tabloids mean she wasn't ignorant? She certainly knew little about the world when she married Charles..
I think this is what Charles wanted in a bride. Someone with little knowledge of the outside world, someone not savvy, someone naive. But Diana caught on quickly after the wedding. I think Charles was taken by surprise.
Quote from: amabel on March 19, 2017, 09:41:43 AM
Quote from: sandy on March 18, 2017, 02:21:14 PM
Diana was a natural in meeting and greeting people on appearances. I don't consider Charles intelligent and he did not have the greatest grades. Diana used the term "thick as a plank" to a little girl trying to put her at ease. She did not mean she REALLY was. That should not be held against her considering the way she used the term. Diana was not "ignorant" nor "arrogant." People catch on when public figures are "arrogant." Diana was not "arrogant" nor ever had that charge leveled against her.
well if you don't think Charles is intelligent, I don't see how you can think Diana was, when she didn't even pass the basis school exams.
and yes people did think that Diana was arrogant. They might not have literally used that word but many people thought that she had come to think of herself as more speicail than the rest of the RF because she was popular.
Charles was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. He had mentors and was not savvy enough to distinguish between good and bad advice. He wanted even to have the shady business man Armand Hammer as godfather to WIlliam until Diana talked him out of it. I find it amazing considering Diana's education that she did so well. She was a natural in her role. Who are the "many people." Her severest critics Junor and Seward never referred to Diana as "arrogant." In a way though all royals have "attitudes" about who they are. People tended to relate to royals like the Queen Mum and Diana more than other royals.
But Charles does not need to be "sharpest tool in the drawer"
@sandy. He's got plenty of achievements to show for his education. First Prince of Wales with a degree, Londoner of the Decade for raising immense amounts of money for his charity, the remarkable work of the Prince's Trust, making the Duchy of Cornwall a very profitable business venture and taking it out of the red. Those are really, really astounding achievements for anyone. I think that even Diana herself would have admitted that Charles was much more intellectual than her, certainly a much better administrator. She was good with emotional intelligence and connecting with people but not basic administration or even academics.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2017, 02:22:20 PM
@Curryong. "Princess Pushy" was one of the very few remaining friends Diana had in the royal family when it all fell to pieces. Princess Margaret used to be a fan but became her mortal enemy after panorama. I happen to think that Princess Pushy can comment on someone she knew for quite some time. Her interview is not particularly offensive. It just gives another perspective on Diana's character from an insider viewpoint. Even a cat may look at a King.
I beleive that Marie Christine did behave kindly to Diana after the divorce, which is more than most of them did. She said that Diana must not feel she had to curtsy to her, and I think that she probably had a point in what she said. She's not the first person to say that Diana was foolish in beleivng that she was something wonderful, because the tabloids over praised her.
The topic here is how did Diana do in school not was she impressed with her own press. Diana like many in our generation myself included was perhaps not challenged enough in school. In some subjects the work wasn't challenging enough and I had average grades. I did have one teacher most students dreaded however and she challenged me in her class to the tune of all A's. Diana was sent to a girls boarding school where it seemed the curriculum was not geared to preparing young women for academics and careers but homemaking, the arts and being interesting enough to attract a husband. Diana was intelligent enough perhaps more than people gave her credit for to speak and be well received by world leaders, taking on controversial causes AIDS, Leprosy with Mother Teresa, before it was fashionable and the ignorance displayed by highly educated people that such diseases were contagious.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 19, 2017, 02:20:06 PM
But Charles does not need to be "sharpest tool in the drawer" @sandy. He's got plenty of achievements to show for his education. First Prince of Wales with a degree, Londoner of the Decade for raising immense amounts of money for his charity, the remarkable work of the Prince's Trust, making the Duchy of Cornwall a very profitable business venture and taking it out of the red. Those are really, really astounding achievements for anyone. I think that even Diana herself would have admitted that Charles was much more intellectual than her, certainly a much better administrator. She was good with emotional intelligence and connecting with people but not basic administration or even academics.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2017, 02:22:20 PM
@Curryong. "Princess Pushy" was one of the very few remaining friends Diana had in the royal family when it all fell to pieces. Princess Margaret used to be a fan but became her mortal enemy after panorama. I happen to think that Princess Pushy can comment on someone she knew for quite some time. Her interview is not particularly offensive. It just gives another perspective on Diana's character from an insider viewpoint. Even a cat may look at a King.
Consider though the time period. Back when Prince Edward was Prince of Wales he was not expected to attend public universities. He had tutors who arguably gave him a better education than if he went to university. Had Charles lived during that time period, he too would have had tutors. And had Edward been born in 1948 he would have gone to University. Different times. It was not as if Charles was a "genius," he got so so grades.
I would not use the word "intellectual" for Charles. That would be a slap at real intellectuals. Charles IMO is no rocket scientist. Many of his classmates did superior work in school. He got where he is today by being born first to the heiress presumptive. He lucked out that way.
I don't think CHarles was wise for a so-called "intellectual" he relied on mentors some of which did not have the best reputation.
Double post auto-merged: March 19, 2017, 09:32:34 PM
Quote from: amabel on March 19, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
I beleive that Marie Christine did behave kindly to Diana after the divorce, which is more than most of them did. She said that Diana must not feel she had to curtsy to her, and I think that she probably had a point in what she said. She's not the first person to say that Diana was foolish in beleivng that she was something wonderful, because the tabloids over praised her.
NObody in the RF ever called Diana "foolish" to the media. Charles' Mountbatten cousins are the ones who trash Diana. And they are not RF members. Diana did not buy into the PR, she worked--if she really believed it, she would not have gone out of her way to work with her charities and do royal work.
Quote from: Trudie on March 19, 2017, 05:33:05 PM
The topic here is how did Diana do in school not was she impressed with her own press. Diana like many in our generation myself included was perhaps not challenged enough in school. In some subjects the work wasn't challenging enough and I had average grades. I did have one teacher most students dreaded however and she challenged me in her class to the tune of all A's. Diana was sent to a girls boarding school where it seemed the curriculum was not geared to preparing young women for academics and careers but homemaking, the arts and being interesting enough to attract a husband. Diana was intelligent enough perhaps more than people gave her credit for to speak and be well received by world leaders, taking on controversial causes AIDS, Leprosy with Mother Teresa, before it was fashionable and the ignorance displayed by highly educated people that such diseases were contagious.
Thank you for sharing your experiences
@Trudie. I'm so pleased that girls are being challenged today with STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) courses in greater numbers than ever.
@Trudie has given me important insights into the education of the girl child in those times. That is why I say that Diana was not without intelligence. Had she been an airhead, the people she was interacting with would have found her out very quickly. This was a woman who was good enough to handle meetings at the highest level without embarrassing the queen.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 20, 2017, 02:29:54 PM
@Trudie has given me important insights into the education of the girl child in those times. That is why I say that Diana was not without intelligence. Had she been an airhead, the people she was interacting with would have found her out very quickly. This was a woman who was good enough to handle meetings at the highest level without embarrassing the queen.
waht sort of "meetings at the highest level" did she attend? Hardly a cabinet briefing or an academic seminar. Many people DID believe she was an airhead and that she knew very little, and that she got by on her looks and charm and being able to make a few smart sounding remarks.
And like most royals she was wildly over praised by various people.
People who disliked her thought she was an airhead. They did not like her so they thought the worst of her. That said, Junor or Seward her severest critics did not call her an airhead. I would not say "many" people thought so. That is your take on it. Many people did not think her an airhead. Diana met the Sadats on her honeymoon. They never put her down. Mother Teresa got along with Diana and did not think her "stupid." I don't get the put downs of Diana quite frankly even saying 'many' thought she was an airhead.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 20, 2017, 02:29:54 PM
@Trudie has given me important insights into the education of the girl child in those times. That is why I say that Diana was not without intelligence. Had she been an airhead, the people she was interacting with would have found her out very quickly. This was a woman who was good enough to handle meetings at the highest level without embarrassing the queen.
In regards to meetings were you thinking of overseas goodwill tours and incoming state visits? In the UK only the monarch would be present to meet with the leader(s) of the government to discuss policies and the state of affairs in the country.
Much as I am a fan of Diana's I do believe that she was much shyer early in the marriage and less able to talk on serious subjects than she was later, and an anocdote from her honeymoon on Britannia illustrates this. She and Charles met the Egyptian leader at the time, (I think it was President Sadat) and his wife. She attempted smalltalk with them but all that came out was repeated praise of the fruit, mangoes, they had eaten! Later on, after Diana had travelled more, involved herself in charities and seen more places, she became much more accomplished at smalltalk and discussion on serious topics.
@Curryong-I agree. Also President and Mrs. Sadat would have taken into consideration that she was still a newlywed who had entered into royal life so they would have steered the conversation to light topics ie: fruit at that time.
Hard to think that he would be assassinated only a few months later. :(
Quote from: Curryong on March 20, 2017, 09:14:29 PM
Much as I am a fan of Diana's I do believe that she was much shyer early in the marriage and less able to talk on serious subjects than she was later, and an anocdote from her honeymoon on Britannia illustrates this. She and Charles met the Egyptian leader at the time, (I think it was President Sadat) and his wife. She attempted smalltalk with them but all that came out was repeated praise of the fruit, mangoes, they had eaten! Later on, after Diana had travelled more, involved herself in charities and seen more places, she became much more accomplished at smalltalk and discussion on serious topics.
Diana was not going to expound on foreign policy. She like other royals do "small talk." She was only married a short time as well.
Quote from: amabel on March 20, 2017, 07:36:14 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on March 20, 2017, 02:29:54 PM
@Trudie has given me important insights into the education of the girl child in those times. That is why I say that Diana was not without intelligence. Had she been an airhead, the people she was interacting with would have found her out very quickly. This was a woman who was good enough to handle meetings at the highest level without embarrassing the queen.
waht sort of "meetings at the highest level" did she attend? Hardly a cabinet briefing or an academic seminar. Many people DID believe she was an airhead and that she knew very little, and that she got by on her looks and charm and being able to make a few smart sounding remarks.
And like most royals she was wildly over praised by various people.
Diana while not attending cabinet meetings was well received by leaders. Nelson Mendela met with her shortly before her death, The Mitterrand's of France thought highly of her and if she was the airhead you and what you believe were many why would the Queen have chosen her to represent her abroad instead of asking Anne or one of her cousins?. Diana was well received by leaders in their chosen fields of which she raised charitable funds. Diana was no candidate for a membership in Mensa but neither is Charles. Let me ask you even if this is going off topic a bit The Queen lacked in education as well would you call her an airhead? IMO The Queen had looks and charm as well and she took the Throne at 25 and has reigned for 65 years.
Quote from: Curryong on March 20, 2017, 09:14:29 PM
Much as I am a fan of Diana's I do believe that she was much shyer early in the marriage and less able to talk on serious subjects than she was later, and an anocdote from her honeymoon on Britannia illustrates this. She and Charles met the Egyptian leader at the time, (I think it was President Sadat) and his wife. She attempted smalltalk with them but all that came out was repeated praise of the fruit, mangoes, they had eaten! Later on, after Diana had travelled more, involved herself in charities and seen more places, she became much more accomplished at smalltalk and discussion on serious topics.
I think she was extremely ill informed in the first few years... but as I've said, she did realise as she grew older that if she learned more about her charities, the job was more interesting. in the early years I think she was restistant to learning, but later on she did learn in her own way... and she could also count on her aides to brief her what to say.
Quote from: sandy on March 20, 2017, 07:40:29 PM
People who disliked her thought she was an airhead. They did not like her so they thought the worst of her. That said, Junor or Seward her severest critics did not call her an airhead. I would not say "many" people thought so. That is your take on it. Many people did not think her an airhead. Diana met the Sadats on her honeymoon. They never put her down. Mother Teresa got along with Diana and did not think her "stupid." I don't get the put downs of Diana quite frankly even saying 'many' thought she was an airhead.
many people did. Even at her most popular, if you read the papers in the 80s you'd see there were lots of journalists who thought she was pretty and charming but had not got much brains. It doesn't matter whether the Sadats thogut her stupid or Mother Teresa, the fact is that many people DID think she was stupid. It is hardly "thinking the worst of her", to say that she wasn't very clever, anyway. She might not be very clever, and still do her job well and have a good heart..which she did have.
It is not "putting someone down" if you genuinely think that they are not vry clever, to say that theyre' not clever.
I don't think a journalists represent "many." "Many people" may have found her clever and bright. I don't know how you can say "many" people thought she was stupid is figured without any definitive surveys or anything. Diana was eager to learn and unlike her University educated son had much better public speaking skills (she went in for self improvement and voice lessons). There are College and High School Drop outs who achieved outstanding success especially in the computer industry who put those who got the degree to shame. Charles had so so grades at University and relied on mentors. I don't think the royals are exactly all Einsteins in any case.
In the beginning of her royal life the media and for the most part the palace tried to portray Diana as an airhead whose only interest was babies and clothes. After providing the heirs and doing tours and charity work Diana proved she was not an air head who as she grew in confidence on the world stage showed the world she was a woman with intelligence who could give informed speeches on the cause she was working on. The palace more or less encouraged the media to show Charles as the intellect however he shied away from Aids or any other controversial subjects.
^^^Thank you for sharing that
@Trudie. I would like to add that I don't think that Diana's self esteem was helped either by her family's attitude toward her schooling. Her siblings mocked her school performance and her parents made it clear that their son and heir would be the one who would be attending university rather than their daughters. While I do understand that their views on higher education for women was not uncommon for their class, it is a shame that it was communicated to their youngest daughter in that manner.
Now regarding the education of their sons, Diana stated in the Morton tapes that she chose all of the schools. Charles who was clearly not the most supportive of his wife's intellectual abilities, must have had some confidence in her decision making when it came to selecting the boys' schools. As far as I can tell, the brothers were prepared each step in their education. When Harry was diagnosed with his learning disability he was provided with assistance that he required and later was not forced into continuing his classroom education. Even after her death, Charles did not deviate from what appears to be Diana's suggestions for her children when it came to their schooling.
Quote from: TLLK on June 16, 2017, 08:30:09 PM
^^^Thank you for sharing that @Trudie. I would like to add that I don't think that Diana's self esteem was helped either by her family's attitude toward her schooling. Her siblings mocked her school performance and her parents made it clear that their son and heir would be the one who would be attending university rather than their daughters. While I do understand that their views on higher education for women was not uncommon for their class, it is a shame that it was communicated to their youngest daughter in that manner.
Now regarding the education of their sons, Diana stated in the Morton tapes that she chose all of the schools. Charles who was clearly not the most supportive of his wife's intellectual abilities, must have had some confidence in her decision making when it came to selecting the
what was communicated to Diana? She was never going to attned university not because of her sex and class but because she could not have gotten in.
as for the boys, DIana picked Eton because her family had usualy gone there, it was near London, and Charles gave way on ti because he had hated Gordonston and let her have her way.. I dotn believe she was considering "what was the best education" for the boys, it was more to do with not wanting them miles away In Scotland, and the social kudos of being at Eton or Harrow.
Double post auto-merged: June 16, 2017, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: sandy on June 16, 2017, 12:24:23 PM
I don't think a journalists represent "many." "Many people" may have found her clever and bright. I don't know how you can say "many" people thought she was stupid is figured without any definitive surveys or anything. Diana was eager to learn and unlike her University educated son had much better public speaking skills (she went in for self improvement and voice lessons). There are College and High School Drop outs who achieved outstanding success especially in the computer industry who put those who got the degree to shame. Charles had so so grades at University and relied on mentors. I don't think the royals are exactly all Einsteins in any case.
frankly Sandy I worked in a large office at the time of the last few years of Di's marriage and most people there thought she was not clever. Some people may have thoguth she was bright, plenty of others didn't. it has nothing to do with wheter "other royals" are "Einsteins".. or whatever. The facts are that Diana got no O levels and her sisters who were also reared for "marriage and not university" got several In Sarah's case. I think she got 9.
Back then it was less common for aristo women to attend university. They were expected to marry well. I think Charles and Diana were on the same page clearly with the school selection.
Quotewhat was communicated to Diana?
Her siblings called her "Brian" which I understand was the name of a slow snail in a children's show that was popular during her childhood. I don't get the feeling that her parents really wanted to discover why their youngest daughter was struggling at school.
She probably had a learning disorder which could have been rectified. But back then aristo women were supposed to marry well. Sarah wanted to marry the very wealthy Duke of Westminster who broke up with her.
Quote from: TLLK on June 16, 2017, 09:56:59 PM
Quotewhat was communicated to Diana?
Her siblings called her "Brian" which I understand was the name of a slow snail in a children's show that was popular during her childhood. I don't get the feeling that her parents really wanted to discover why their youngest daughter was struggling at school.
yes they teased her because she was seen as stupid. but while I don't think she was STUPID, there was IMO no chance that she would ever bei going to Uni and she would not have wanted it.
I think her parents didn't care if she wasn't doing well at school, that's true. Partly because she didn't need qualfiications to do a little job and marry well.. but partly because IMO the pair of them Jonny and Frances were a selfish pair, wrapped up in their own lives, and they didn't care as long as she was quiet and not in trouble. I
think if they thought about it at all, they jus thought, "oh she failed exams because she's not very smart, or didn't study much but ti doesn't matter, we'll get her into a finishing school where she can learn French and cookery.. "
However when Diana didn't want to stay at the Finishing school they let her come home too easily IMO.. they could have pushed her a bit to get some kind of training, even if ti was for cookery or whatever, which might have given her a sense of achievement..
but it is not the fault of her parents that she didn't get further education. She didn't have the qualifications to get in.. and would not have been interested in it anyway.
Some upper class girls did go to college, if they were very bright and interested, I dont think that upper crust parents would usually say "No" even at that time, if a girl wanted to study further. Just that they didn't exactly push their daughters to study further because it wasn't considered necessary for them to have a uni education.
Lady Jane Wellesley had a degree and became a producer or journalist with the BBC, she was a career girl and she was a little older than Diana.. so it wasn't impossible for a girl of the upper class to get a third level education and pursue a career. I saw that Amanda Knatchbull became a social worker so I THINK she had a degree...
Di's sisters both got decent O levels and went into office jobs when they left school..
Jane Wellesley though stayed single. She did not aim for the great match, she enjoyed her career.
She seems to have had several romances and is now a writer.
I do think that one of Diana's main failings, or maybe a failing of her upbringing, was that she was never encouraged or persuaded or forced to stick at anything.
I do think that she had great emotional intelligence and was not unintelligent, but the constantly failing at exams at school for instance would send red lights flashing for most parents nowadays. They would get some tests done, (slight learning difficulties perhaps) or get special tuition on weaker subjects. I do wonder whether there was a very slight form of dislexia lingering there, only because of Harry's experiences with exams and some forms of reading difficulties being hereditary. The headmistress of her school seemed just flummoxed as to what the problem was.
It was not just that, though. She couldn't bear to stay at finishing school at sixteen because she felt uncomfortable there. She was allowed to return home within three months. She didn't want to return to the school where she taught little once dance because she felt pressured by the parents. So she just left, without any explanation really. Later, she didn't want to read about former Princesses of Wales, feeling that they were dull and boring, so she didn't.
Just lots of examples over the early years of not saying to herself 'Well I have to succeed at this so it will be better for me to stick at it until I've learned it. With Charles it was just as intense in the other direction, ie being made to stay for years at a school he loathed and detested because he had to 'man up'. I don't know which is worse!
Well i'd question the great emtoinal intelligence... It seems to me that someone of great emotional intelligence would not screw up so often with her romantic relationships. Anyway that's not really the issue.
But I don't know fi her school were really that bothered about her failing exams, were they?
I think that they just thoguth she wasn't that clever, or that she was a bit bothered by her family dramas and problems and that it didn't realy matter because she was well off and didn't have to have a career or work for a living.
and I think her family ie parents didn't give a hoot because they were too selfish to bother.
But I do agree tat the reluctance to stick at things was a problem of hers, almost to the point of a character failing. She didn't stick at school, she could have surely stayed another year, worked harder and tried to get an O level or 2, if she'd really wanted to. And she was the same about the Finishing school - left after a few weeks and she dropped the dancing teaching after a few weeks, sayng she'd hurt her foot.
and in later life, Pat Jephson said that he had various projects that he thoght she would enjoy when she was separated form Charles, and they would keep her "noticed" by the press and public and keep her being seen as a working Royal but with more choice of what she wanted to do. but that when Diana found that these were projects she would have to "see to the end", she didn't want to do them and he found it harder to find interesting work for her to do.
It makes it all the more extraordinary that the queen/QM imagined that this very poorly educated and demonstrably immature girl was going to be a great life long companion to her son and would one day be the matriarch of the family. I would hope that nobody in Diana's situation will ever be encouraged to marry a prince of wales. One wonders whether they have really learnt their lessons.
I cannot imagine that Diana could have coped with something as serious as the abdication crisis. Whether she could have been able to act as a support to a husband who was a reluctant or diffident king. Someone like the QM may not have had O levels but she certainly understood what needed to be done and how it ought to be done in such situations. Even the queen was given important constitutional and personal lessons that have preserved her throne in times of crisis. Diana was way too impulsive and emotional for the situation in which she was placed.
I wish the upper classes realized that no matter how rich or powerful you are, education does help. Elizabeth I was incredibly well-educated and it all paid off in her reign. Now we have a situation where aristocratic women are implicitly encouraged to be lazy, under educated and dependent.
I really don't know what you meaen. SOME aristocratic women don't go in for education, others do. As they are usually rich enough to not have to work, I don't see how ti mkes tehm "lazy" or "dependent."
And I'm sure that the RF didn't think that a few O levels meant anything very much. what counted was character and Diana was very young, I think they felt that her character was not developed, as yet and that she was "Mouldeable". I'm sure the Queen and her mother (Insofar as they thought of it at all) thought that if Charles was borthered by her not being very well educated that was HIS affair (neither of them were "educated" in terms of schoolwork anyway).
Camilla has only a moderate education and is not an intellectual, but she is discreet, loyal and sensible.
I was musing not so much on Diana's level of education so much, (or lack of it) as why she was never pushed into completing anything early in her childhood. As far as Diana's education was concerned, as has been said there might have been a mild learning disability there that wasn't picked up at her first school and so was just left.
I do wonder if her siblings' teasing made things worse and the lack of self confidence because she didn't seem to be a great student was exacerbated. Therefore she stopped trying quite early on. We've all seen children who wail 'I can't do this, don't want to' when faced with various tasks they feel are beyond them. However, with careful coaching from parents, teachers, mentors they usually can do it, and therefore feel a sense of accomplishment. I do wonder if, back when Diana was still very young no parent or teacher provided back-up, she did fail, and was never encouraged to try again.
It just seems to me that after Diana's mother left the children were left to their own devices a good deal. Johnny encouraged good manners, the writing of ThankYou notes and a spirit of egalitarianism in his children. However I just don't know whether, (as he appears to have been a fairly good natured sort of man) he ever pushed them to develop self-discipline, which is really an essential part of character-building. (Self-discipline is a big part of the Queen's character for example in spite of an abysmal education.) A lack of that plus not feeling good about school may have programmed the older Diana to feel that if she didn't try then she didn't really fail.
Just musing on these things!
well yes, I think that the Spencer parents both left Diana to cope alone a lot. she didn't want to try things she wasn't good at or things she found difficult and they didn't push her at all or insist that she had to try. They coud have insisted on her staying at least 6 months at finishing school.. or that she had to go back to school and try and get ONE o level.
But the lack of "trying" was a life long problem with her I think. She did some things, that she had been trained in from childhood like the thank you notes, and she did her paperwork quickly, but in her "post Charles" days she was not that active In her charity work, she wasn't willing to undertake projects that Jephson found for her... because she knew I think that she would not stick them to the end...
I think she had some learning disability issues and good parents would have seen to it that she got it treated. Today there are so many clinics and intervention to help students over learning disabilities. Diana said she "froze up" when she was test taking. It sounds like the parents should have done some intervention. This was something that could have been corrected. It was not that she was lazy or not trying. Too bad they did not care enough to see what was going on.
Double post auto-merged: July 06, 2017, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 06, 2017, 08:03:03 AM
It makes it all the more extraordinary that the queen/QM imagined that this very poorly educated and demonstrably immature girl was going to be a great life long companion to her son and would one day be the matriarch of the family. I would hope that nobody in Diana's situation will ever be encouraged to marry a prince of wales. One wonders whether they have really learnt their lessons.
I cannot imagine that Diana could have coped with something as serious as the abdication crisis. Whether she could have been able to act as a support to a husband who was a reluctant or diffident king. Someone like the QM may not have had O levels but she certainly understood what needed to be done and how it ought to be done in such situations. Even the queen was given important constitutional and personal lessons that have preserved her throne in times of crisis. Diana was way too impulsive and emotional for the situation in which she was placed.
I wish the upper classes realized that no matter how rich or powerful you are, education does help. Elizabeth I was incredibly well-educated and it all paid off in her reign. Now we have a situation where aristocratic women are implicitly encouraged to be lazy, under educated and dependent.
The Queen and Princess Margaret did not get really great educations. Margaret especially (she complained later that her education was neglected).
The Queen Mother was known to take to her bed when there was a crisis. This was documented in various books. She did cope but her first reaction was to take to her bed. The QUeen herself has been known to ostrich about problems in the family and go into avoidance mode.
Charles needed a bride who would agree to ALL his ideas about marriage (including her being civilized about Camilla). Charles should have spelled out all the conditions and I mean all, and the bride to be could agree or not agree to the terms and be free to walk before any proposal could take place. Maybe someone would have agreed to his terms.
Diana was strong enough to face various problems. She handled the ski accident situation and more or less had to do some taking charge after Charles survived the avalanche and his friend was killed. And it took real strength to leave the Firm and regroup. She was not some weak little person.
In one documentaries, she was described as not really paying attention in her classes and her mind being elsewhere. I believe she felt pretty thick as a child while her younger brother did well. Fortunately she was given the opportunity to learn things that most who did very well in school, couldn't.
Quote from: michelle0187 on July 07, 2017, 02:04:57 PM
In one documentaries, she was described as not really paying attention in her classes and her mind being elsewhere. I believe she felt pretty thick as a child while her younger brother did well. Fortunately she was given the opportunity to learn things that most who did very well in school, couldn't.
:goodpost: While I believe that Diana had a mild learning disability that affected her ability to learn, I agree that she was given a good opportunity to learn as much as she possibly could at school and afterwards during her tenure as Princess of Wales.
I think if Diana had a tutor or went to get treated for learning disability she could have passed those exams. She said in an interview she just froze up and forgot what she learned when a test was administered. I think her parents were remiss.
@sandy-Yes if she'd had the support as a child/teen then I do believe that she would have been able to pass her O levels/GCSEs or even a few A levels like Harry and Beatrice.
The family qualifications - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531553/The-family-qualifications.html)
Quote from: michelle0187 on July 07, 2017, 02:04:57 PM
In one documentaries, she was described as not really paying attention in her classes and her mind being elsewhere. I believe she felt pretty thick as a child while her younger brother did well. Fortunately she was given the opportunity to learn things that most who did very well in school, couldn't.
what thngs???OK she joined the RF, but i'd say that most girls of her class could have adjusted to Royal life as well and better than she did.
Double post auto-merged: July 08, 2017, 04:44:58 AM
Quote from: TLLK on July 07, 2017, 11:58:14 PM
@sandy-Yes if she'd had the support as a child/teen then I do believe that she would have been able to pass her O levels/GCSEs or even a few A levels like Harry and Beatrice.
The family qualifications - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531553/The-family-qualifications.html)
Did Harry get A levels? I don't believe Diana was interested in learning at least not as a young girl and problaby what stopped her passing exams was a simple lakc of knowledge, she hadn't been paying attention in class and was not abel to do well at the exams. I doubt if a tutor would have made any diference. She was not wiling to learn when she joined the RF, saying that she had "left school"...
Apparently Harry has very bad dyslexia. I remember when he was with Chelsy and hiding from the photographers a reporter who was with them remarked that it stopped him from playing some word based board games to pass the time. It's extraordinary that that wasn't picked up at Ludgrove or Eton, and that he still managed to qualify as an Apache helicopter pilot.
King Carl Gustav of Sweden has dyslexia and has signed his name wrongly on documents several times. While we don't know whether Diana had learning difficulties she could well have, and it just wasn't picked up. Susannah York the English actress, said her dyslexia had prevented her from reading scripts and she had to have them on tape and learn it by rote. Learning difficulties aren't just something you can ignore and people were and are classed as 'dumb' and 'thick' because of them.
I have not seen any signs that Diana had dyslexia, she wrote a lot of letters and I don't believe anyone's ever said "there were a lot of words spelled wrong". And I think that there is no definite evidence that she had any learning disabilities, I don't think "but she could have"..is any indication. I think it is more likely she wasn't interested In school work and as you've said, "didn't try" at more than one thing because she found it difficult. She didn't want to stay in the finishing school and her parents let her come home. She ddn't want to learn about previous Princesses, so she refused to read books on them.
I've heard someone saying that they only wrote very brief "briefing notes" because she wouldn't read a long one...
So stupid, ey? But connected with people beautifully and her charisma brought out the crowds...
what has htat got to do with anyitng? I didn't say she was stupid, actually, I said that she was unwilling to learn which may co exist with stupidity, but does not necessarily do so.
But she could be extremely stupid and yet be very popular...
What I understand is that Diana completely refused to be guided by people that had been in this business for years. A long-standing experience lady in waiting was assigned and she blanked her out, typical of someone whose maturity is not quite there. She imagined that because she was popular and pulled in the crowds, that was enough to sustain her as Princess of Wales. History has taught us that that was a very bad misjudgment on her part.
When Diana started making mistakes (partly because of her impulsiveness, emotionalism and inability to use the resources available to her): she went back to default mode saying that nobody supported her. The men in grey suits have kept that institution going for decades with their dour routines. Diana wanted to bring glamour and drama. It all became one big publicity stunt with exaggerated emotions and responses but then it all came crushing down later on. She might have been better served reading a lot about previous princesses of wales and their approach to the role.
Diana did have a compatible Lady in Waiting Anne Beckwith Smith. She did not blank Anne out. That is a matter of record.
DIana did not "imagine" she was popular. She was popular. One can't "imagine" popularity. No it was not a big publicity stunt.
Double post auto-merged: July 08, 2017, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: amabel on July 08, 2017, 06:44:20 AM
what has htat got to do with anyitng? I didn't say she was stupid, actually, I said that she was unwilling to learn which may co exist with stupidity, but does not necessarily do so.
But she could be extremely stupid and yet be very popular...
Diana was not stupid. Decidedly not.
Double post auto-merged: July 08, 2017, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: amabel on July 08, 2017, 05:22:29 AM
I have not seen any signs that Diana had dyslexia, she wrote a lot of letters and I don't believe anyone's ever said "there were a lot of words spelled wrong". And I think that there is no definite evidence that she had any learning disabilities, I don't think "but she could have"..is any indication. I think it is more likely she wasn't interested In school work and as you've said, "didn't try" at more than one thing because she found it difficult. She didn't want to stay in the finishing school and her parents let her come home. She ddn't want to learn about previous Princesses, so she refused to read books on them.
I've heard someone saying that they only wrote very brief "briefing notes" because she wouldn't read a long one...
There are other types of learning disabilities. The parents did not bother to check. It is amazing how this woman you put down was admired by Mandela, MOther Teresa and others. Nothing to sneeze at.
Diana imagined that the role of the princess of wales was all about courting and sustaining popularity and publicity. As her fate in that role shown, there was a lot more to it. Diana was offered one of the queen's long term ladies in waiting to help her settle into what is a complex role for a 19 year old. She wanted none of it, considering the training boring. Look how it all turned out in the end when Diana decided to do it her own way. Perhaps she might have had a better result if she listened to the old and trusted courtiers that tried to help her instead of labeling them "the enemy". Just a thought
QuoteThere are other types of learning disabilities. The parents did not bother to check.
Yes there are many types of learning disabilities, but in defense of Johnny and Frances there was very little known about
mild learning disabilities in the 1960's and 1970's as compared with today.
Diana almost never put a foot wrong in her public life, in either following protocol at traditional events or in performing her public duties. You make her out to be some ditzy celebrity.
Diana met and charmed other royals and Heads of State and VIPs and she shone at public events. Diana was both charming and dignified when in her role as Princess of Wales. She curtsied well, no half-assed bob for her, and looked wonderful in gowns and tiaras with the Family Order. In spite of old guard courtiers who may have disapproved can you point to one mistake she made in protocol or in making speeches or in her public role as Princess of Wales?
@Curryong. Simple answer: Morton and Bashir. I doubt that any courtier or adviser worth their salt would have advised such adventures. Indeed I understand some of her friends strongly advised her against them but she insisted in order to vent her emotions. You don't last long as a Princess of Wales when you do that.
As you correctly pointed out, Diana was very good at the public role. It was the private that tended to go wrong.
Morton and Bashir were not part of her duties. ANd if that argument is made. Then Charles should be faulted for his Dimbleby Interview and book. And his confesion of adultery. Charles also has Junor now helping him out.
Diana continued to do her work between the Morton book and the divorce.
Diana went into her royal duties right after the honeymoon and did extremely well with little or no practice. I think we are talking about two different things. Royal duties vs. the public confessions of Charles and Diana.
That wasn't the question I asked, was it? I asked what mistakes Diana ever made (in spite of not taking instruction from courtiers) did she ever make in her public role ie breaking protocol, acting up and disgracing the BRF when meeting VIPs and Heads of State? What curtsey did she ever fumble, what speech did she ever mess up, what other Royal did she ever insult? I'm not talking about the private Diana but the public one.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 08, 2017, 11:08:18 AM
Diana imagined that the role of the princess of wales was all about courting and sustaining popularity and publicity. As her fate in that role shown, there was a lot more to it. Diana was offered one of the queen's long term ladies in waiting to help her settle into what is a complex role for a 19 year old. She wanted none of it, considering the training boring. Look how it all
I can't say that I recollect that. Who was the long term lady in waiting? She had women suggested for her ladies, including Anne Beckwith Smith and she worked with her for some years. so I don't know what yo're saying this for?
But you see Sandy: those two adventures precipitated Diana being asked to leave the royal family through divorce. As for Dimbley, I personally thought it was heavily slanted towards Charles life and work but the tabloid press picked up a few juicy bits and run away with them. Diana's forays were outright attacks on Charles and his family. Not since Caroline of Brunswick had a Princess of Wales betrayed the monarchy in such a way.
In any case Charles remains the Prince of Wales despite Dimbley. By contrast, Diana was quickly asked to divorce following Bashir. Clearly those that make the decisions were of the view that she was no longer capable of functioning as the Princess of Wales after those forays. By contrast Charles just continued with his work, Dimbley or no Dimbley. One of Diana's biggest mistakes was assuming that she could take on Charles and the monarchy. Had she listened to those dowdy courtiers, she would have known that that is a losing bet...every time.
Double post auto-merged: July 08, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 08, 2017, 02:40:12 PM
That wasn't the question I asked, was it? I asked what mistakes Diana ever made (in spite of not taking instruction from courtiers) did she ever make in her public role ie breaking protocol, acting up and disgracing the BRF when meeting VIPs and Heads of State? What curtsey did she ever fumble, what speech did she ever mess up, what other Royal did she ever insult? I'm not talking about the private Diana but the public one.
Ok. The Korean visit comes to mind. I think she also did something with her hair (I forget)
@amabel. Richard Kay (used to be Diana's mouthpiece in the DM answers your question in the article below)
How Diana broke the Queen's heart and that she sees her in Princes William and Harry | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479619/How-Diana-broke-Queen-s-heart-Based-new-interviews-Majesty-s-inner-circle-truth-explosive-battle-wills-revealed-one-definitive-portrait.html)
I think this is apples and oranges. The thread was talking about Diana's ability to do royal duties considering her education background. She excelled in them. You are bringing up another subject--the tell all interviews of Charles and Diana which came at the end of the marriage. I thought the topic was her ability to do these duties which IMO she excelled at. The tell all interviews are a different conversation. The man born into the family went in for "telling all" to his biographer a year before Diana's Panorama Interview.
APB quickly asked for a divorce from his wife after Charles' interview. SO much damage was done.
Diana did function as Princess of Wales even through the years of the separation. After the divorce she was regrouping and planning her own charitable endeavors which IMO she would have excelled at. Diana was not "asked to leave the royal family." She would always be a part of it. To rehash the settlement, she got to stay in a Royal residence, she had two Royal children, one a future King and share custody of them with Charles. SHe would go to royal events which involved the children she had with Charles. She retained the title Princess of Wales. So no she was not ousted.
Wow. I did not know that the royal family did not strip Diana of her title and throw her to the wolves after the divorce. So; they simply embraced her as one of their own after Panorama and the divorce? Did not know that. How interesting. :eyes: That means that all those stories about the evil Windsors are just lies. I am glad to hear that Charles and the royal family are not so heartless after all. You know, this story is so convoluted; I sometimes lose track of who are the good and bad guys. Can really put a dampener when you are trying to enjoy a good fairy tale.
I talked about Diana's impulsiveness and her unwillingness to learn from others even when the opportunities were offered. The lady in waiting is a prime example and the refusal to read about the former princesses of wales is another. I do think it is relevant when discussing the extent to which she was capable of completing her education. As to the disability stuff, I do not know because she was never fully tested. Just like the BPD stuff: people just got the APA guidelines and matched them to some of the things happening in her life but they did not have a complete diagnostic assessment.
Anne Beckwith-Smith – My Blog (http://theroyalpost.com/tag/anne-beckwith-smith/)
A photo of Anne with Diana.
Anne Beckwith Smith and Diana got along famously.
Diana excelled at royal work. Charles never criticized her for slacking off or being inadequate.
https://www.google.com/search?q=anne+beckwith+smith+and+princess+diana&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR7PH8_vnUAhXJVT4KHelwCSQQsAQIKQ&biw=1536&bih=759&dpr=1.25#imgrc=YAmsBK7yxIKnfM:
The last Princess of Wales (Mary) was the last bearer of that title, until she became Queen in May 1910. The Princess before that, Alexandra, was PssOW before January 1901. Now I, as a history buff, have read about both those ladies. However, I fail to see what possible relevance either of their lives would have had to a young woman who married the POW in 1981.
Practically everything had changed. The British Empire was no more. Relatives of the BRF no longer sat on thrones in Germany or Russia. Alex, who was fun loving and quite informal herself, was a Princess of Denmark. Were the courtiers proposing that Diana visit Scandinavia?
The formal world that royalty inhabited before WWI had also disappeared, as had the social round presided over by King Edward VII. Neither Alexandra nor Mary undertook hundreds of engagements a year, as Diana did. Nor did they make very many speeches.
In fact much of their early lives as Princesses of Wales was taken up with bearing children. Were the courtiers proposing that Diana have a baby every other year, like Alexandra. In fact I suspect her being given the biographies of two women who presided over very different Courts in a very different world, was the 'brilliant' idea of some very elderly courtier and served no earthly use at all!
I think the lady in waiting offered to Diana was Lady Susan Hussey. She might have selected Anne Beckwith but I wonder whether any of her ladies-in-waiting advised her about how she was sowing the seeds of her own destruction by some of her actions? If they didn't then they were quite remiss. Diana made many, many tactical and strategic errors that ended up costing her her marriage and position.
Sandy says: "Charles never criticized her for slacking off or being inadequate"
I am beginning to like Charles more and more. Diana wrote in Morton "He made me feel inadequate in every way". Maybe that was another lie conceived to make Charles look as bad as possible.
In any case if Charles never criticized Diana for being inadequate, he was much kinder to Diana than she was to him. Diana went on national television and said her husband was not up to the job of King. incredibly she harbored notions that the marriage could be saved after that...funny logic or what?. I will have to readjust my notions of the villains and victims in this fairy tale after this information.
No, Anne Beckwith was one of the first ladies in waiting assigned to Diana in 1981. She stayed with Diana. We are talking about royal duties here and whether Diana took advice from ladies in waiting. She apparently did and relied on Anne.
It's the same as Charles' courtier trying to warn him about going public about Camilla in his interview. It did not do any good.
Royalanthropologist says that she is beginning to like Charles more and more. I am talking about Public Comments of Charles not the Morton book. Again the conversation goes to the revelations of C and D.
Diana did not say Charles was up to the job as King. What interview did you listen to? She said the Top Job would put limitations on him, and he would not be able to speak out on issues. FGS Even Junor mentioned this about Charles and she is a huge fan of his.
Again, I thought the topic was about DIana's royal duties not the interviews. I thought that the topic was if Diana's education gave her preparation for royal work. TO me, obviously it did.
@Curryong. One of the things that Diana might have learnt from those early Princesses of Wales is discretion and to keep her own counsel, no matter how much pressure she was facing. She might also have learnt that sometimes loyalty to the crown means that you have to suppress your own personal preferences for the institution. And of course she might have learnt that it is never a very good idea to criticize the Prince of Wales in public, let alone using mass media if you are a senior member of the royal family. I think those lessons are enduring despite the changes in lifestyles.
Those elderly courtiers have served and sustained the monarchy for many years. Diana lasted less than 15 years in the institution and left very acrimoniously. If I were her, I would want to listen to people who had been there and done that. Diana found those old stuffy courtiers there and left them there. Had she listened to them, perhaps she might have had a longer reign as a Princess of Wales and might just yet be the next Queen consort of the UK. Leading by heart led her to tragedy.
QuoteI think this is apples and oranges. The thread was talking about Diana's ability to do royal duties considering her education background.
I agree with
@sandy. This is a thread to discuss Diana's education and how she performed in school perhaps another thread would be a better choice to discuss how she did in her role as Princess of Wales? :)
Charles was observed many times putting Diana down during planning for and on royal tours.
. But that said, in his confessions he never said Diana was "bad" at doing royal work. I think he found she was too good.
Anne was a darn good Lady In Waiting and Diana listened
@sandy: You ask: What interview did you listen to?
This is a verbatim quote of that interview:
"BASHIR: Would it be your wish that when Prince William comes of age that he were to succeed the Queen rather than the current Prince of Wales?
DIANA: My wish is that my husband finds peace of mind, and from that follows others things, yes."
I cannot imagine any princess of wales ever saying such a thing. It really was Diana's downfall. A good education and reading about previous princesses of wales might have informed Diana that that interview was an own goal.
Double post auto-merged: July 08, 2017, 03:57:32 PM
@TLLK. I wanted to make the point that Diana's inability to listen and follow advice may have started right from childhood and affected her ability to learn. However, if I must be silent on this thread then that is not a problem. Happy commenting :hi:
No she still did not say he was incompetent. You did not use the quote that the "top job would put limitations on him" something echoed by Penny Junor. She did not flat out say she wanted William to succeed instead of his father. She did not say how he would find "peace of mind." She also did not say CHarles was incompetent. She did not say I want Charles out and WIlliam succeeding. I have seen the media say straight out that WIlliam should succed the QUeen instead of Charles. ANd this before Diana's interview.
Junor talks about Charles' role
Prince Charles: 'I'm running out of time' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9700402/Prince-Charles-Im-running-out-of-time.html)
Junor says:
Penny Junor, the royal biographer said: "He is impatient, but when he becomes king, his activities and all the projects he most enjoys where he can make a difference, will be seriously curtailed. He has spent an awful lot of his life searching for a role, but I think he does now feel fulfilled pursuing his various interests."
In other words, what he does now will be seriously curtailed as King. So she is saying that the top job would put limitations on him which is what Diana said. YEt she gets trashed for it.
Again, the thread is about DIana's work as a royal, not the interview. WHy not just go to a thread that deals with this.
As I said, Diana excelled at royal work. She said she worked hard at doing well at royal duties.
Quote@TLLK. I wanted to make the point that Diana's inability to listen and follow advice may have started right from childhood and affected her ability to learn. However, if I must be silent on this thread then that is not a problem. Happy commenting :hi:
« Last Edit: Today at 09:57:32 PM by royalanthropologist »
Would never dream of telling anyone to remain silent on any thread, however there are others to discuss her tenure and performance as PssoW.
Diana's school reports comment on how she put forth effort so I do believe that she was listening during her school years. She would not have been able to learn to read, write, do basic arithmetic, learn to dance and swim without following instructors' directions in her youth if she had been someone who ignored her teachers. (Reading between the lines their comments were a red flag to me that she likely had a mild learning disability because as educators we frequently compliment those who give their all, but their performance is average or below average.) As for Diana's inability to listen and follow advice when she was learning about her future role, I'd put that down to her being a typical young adult who wants to demonstrate their competence and independence to a "grown up" world. I'm sure all of us can recall a time during those years when a parent/boss/teacher etc.. tried to advise us but found their words fell on deaf ears. (And I'm sure that many of us, can recall when our efforts were less than stellar when we realized we'd really messed up.) :D
There was no television in the 19th century, Royal, and the media itself has also changed out of all recognition. Alexandra used to remove herself for weeks at a time and go to her relatives during Bertie's womanising episodes. That may be discretion but to me it speaks of deep misery. Who knows, maybe if Alex had been around in the late 20th century she might also have been tempted to tell others her story. But of course, if everybody keeps their mouths shut no matter what the spouse does, such as being in love with somebody else when they maried you, that's so much preferable isn't it?
Agreed
@TLLK it was an example of how she could be willful, even at a young age. I recall I have another post to catch up on where another poster doubted her willful nature as a young adult, when she had given many examples of it, be it her opinion on the wedding vows, her "chief chick" sign in her apartment, her opinions on her pregnancy and childbirth, as well as how William would be raised, not to mention her cleaning out Charles's staff (at least as far as Mr, Barry said, as I recall he said he never met someone so determined as Diana).
But it was often a double edged sword and could work against her as well, especially later in life.
Quote from: Curryong on July 08, 2017, 08:58:56 PM
There was no television in the 19th century, Royal, and the media itself has also changed out of all recognition. Alexandra used to remove herself for weeks at a time and go to her relatives during Bertie's womanising episodes. That may be discretion but to me it speaks of deep misery. Who knows, maybe if Alex had been around in the late 20th century she might also have been tempted to tell others her story. But of course, if everybody keeps their mouths shut no matter what the spouse does, such as being in love with somebody else when they maried you, that's so much preferable isn't it?
I am responding to
@Curryong as follows:
Diana paid a very heavy price for letting it all hang out. It piled on her misery instead of bringing her relief. The marriage she wanted to save was lost forever. She lost allies within the royal family and was pushed out (even though some of her fans continue in this delusional fiction that her divorce meant that she was embraced into the royal fold). She lost her HRH title and the status that went with it. What followed then was a string of unsuitable and frankly unsatisfying relationships, the last of which terminated with her being chased down a tunnel in Paris.
Letting it all hang out is not what it is cracked up to be. The Alexandra's of this world were able to continue their reigns as Princesses of Wales and later became queens despite their marital problems. Diana's fate is infinitely worse on a personal level. Of course she became famous and had an army of devotees, but that is very scant consolation for a messed up personal life. Maybe if Diana had gone to see her relatives during the difficult moments of her life and kept her own counsel, she might have just had a different outcome. Maybe if she had used KP or Althorpe as her bolthole (like Raymill House), she might have found ways of dealing with the daily grind of being married to someone that is not particularly in love with her and with whom she shared few interests.
Not everybody that remains married today has the picture-book romance with a spouse that is totally in love and totally attentive to them. Some people have really challenging marriages or marriages that start out with challenges and end up being fine. Others deal with and see off mistresses. Unfortunately Diana read and believed in too much Barbara Cartland. She was never going to be able to sustain a long term relationship if she followed such sentimental rubbish. Even the author herself hinted that Diana should not have read too many of her books.
Quote from: Curryong on July 08, 2017, 03:37:06 PM
The last Princess of Wales (Mary) was the last bearer of that title, until she became Queen in May 1910. The Princess before that, Alexandra, was PssOW before January 1901. Now I, as a history buff, have read about both those ladies. However, I fail to see what possible relevance either of their lives would have had to a young woman who married the POW in 1981.
Practically everything had changed. The British Empire was no more. Relatives of the BRF no longer sat on thrones in Germany or Russia. Alex, who was fun loving and quite informal herself, was a Princess of Denmark. Were the courtiers proposing that Diana visit Scandinavia?
The formal world that royalty inhabited before WWI had also disappeared, as had the social round presided over by King Edward VII. Neither Alexandra nor Mary undertook hundreds of engagements a year, as Diana did. Nor did they make very many speeches.
In fact much of their early lives as Princesses of Wales was taken up with bearing children. Were the courtiers proposing that Diana have a baby !
If Diana didn't know the history of the family she was marrying into, she was missing out on a lot of background of the RF. true it was a long time sicne there had been a Princess of wales, nevertheless the RF is traditional and look for precedent ad it would have been helpful to Diana if she had gotten some idea of how other women had approached the job and what the Royal famly had done in he past. It wasn't all she should have read, it wouldn't have hurt for her to learn a bit about present day politics and society for the 1970s which she knew nothing of either. But it would have been a start. The point was that Diana refused to do so. She was advised by people whose job it was to help her, to do this, and yet she refused although reading about previous princesses is a farily light piece of work and she still couldn't or woudl't do that.
Double post auto-merged: July 09, 2017, 06:42:09 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 08, 2017, 03:38:30 PM
I think the lady in waiting offered to Diana was Lady Susan Hussey. She might have selected Anne Beckwith but I wonder whether any of her ladies-in-waiting advised her about how she was sowing the seeds of her own destruction by some of her actions? If they didn't then they were quite remiss. Diana made many, many tactical and strategic errors that ended up costing her her marriage and position.
In
Susan hussy was offered to her in pre marital days, not as a lady in waiting. Anne Beckwith Smith was not her choice but she did work iwht her for many yaers, and as I recall Anne left to go back to her old job at some stage. However, Diana certainly didn't tell her, if she was still employed by her, about her decsions to do things likethe Morton book or Panorama, she would certainly have advised against this.
Double post auto-merged: July 09, 2017, 06:44:44 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 08, 2017, 08:58:56 PM
There was no television in the 19th century, Royal, and the media itself has also changed out of all recognition. Alexandra used to remove herself for weeks at a time and go to her relatives during Bertie's womanising episodes. That may be discretion but to me it speaks of deep misery. Who knows, maybe if Alex had been around in the late 20th century she might also have been tempted to tell others her story. But of course, if everybody keeps their mouths shut no matter what the spouse does, such as being in love with somebody else when they maried you, that's so much preferable isn't it?
theres no way Alix would have done such a thing. And maybe she was deeply miserable, maybe she was cross at times.. but either way she expected her marraige to last for life, and it did. People didn't expect to live side by side in a maraige at the time and due to her deafness she preferred to stay in Sandringham, rather than spend a lot of time with Bertie socialising.
Double post auto-merged: July 09, 2017, 06:50:21 AM
Quote from: TLLK on July 08, 2017, 05:21:46 PM
Quote@TLLK. I wanted to make the point that Diana's inability to listen and follow advice may have started right from childhood and affected her ability to learn. However, if I must be silent on this thread then that is not a problem. Happy commenting :hi:
« Last Edit: Today at 09:57:32 PM by royalanthropologist »
Would never dream of telling anyone to remain silent on any thread, however there are others to discuss her tenure and performance as PssoW.
Diana's school reports comment on how she put forth effort so I do believe that she was listening during her school years. She would not have been able to learn to read, write, do basic arithmetic, learn to dance and swim without following instructors' directions in her youth if she had been someone who ignored her teachers. (Reading between the lines their comments were a red flag to me that she likely had a mild learning disability because as educators we frequently compliment those who give their all, but their performance is average or below average.) As for Diana's inability to listen and follow advice when she was learning about her future role, I'd put that down to her being a typical young adult who wants to demonstrate their competence and independence to a "grown up" world. I'm sure all of us can recall a time during those years when a parent/boss/teacher etc.. tried to advise us but found their words fell on deaf ears. (And I'm sure that many of us, can recall when our efforts were less than stellar when we realized we'd really messed up.) :D
well I think its a bit moot. Her teachers aren't likely to say she paid no attention in class, and I think her inattention was "quiet", she just sat there daydreaming.
she problaby did learn things she was interested in, or found easy, but when it got a bit harder in secondary school and her family problems were more troubling for her, she may have retreated into not taking much interest and not trying very hard. And she would not try at other things like the finishing school, so that's IMO sort of a pattern.. that she didn't try very hard when she found soemting difficult.
Alexandra turned a blind eye. And that was that. She was not happy with the mistresses and one biographer said she used passive aggression on her husband rather than confrontations.
Anne may not have been Diana's choice but the two got along.
Double post auto-merged: July 09, 2017, 10:28:28 AM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 09, 2017, 06:36:59 AM
Quote from: Curryong on July 08, 2017, 08:58:56 PM
There was no television in the 19th century, Royal, and the media itself has also changed out of all recognition. Alexandra used to remove herself for weeks at a time and go to her relatives during Bertie's womanising episodes. That may be discretion but to me it speaks of deep misery. Who knows, maybe if Alex had been around in the late 20th century she might also have been tempted to tell others her story. But of course, if everybody keeps their mouths shut no matter what the spouse does, such as being in love with somebody else when they maried you, that's so much preferable isn't it?
I am responding to @Curryong as follows:
Diana paid a very heavy price for letting it all hang out. It piled on her misery instead of bringing her relief. The marriage she wanted to save was lost forever. She lost allies within the royal family and was pushed out (even though some of her fans continue in this delusional fiction that her divorce meant that she was embraced into the royal fold). She lost her HRH title and the status that went with it. What followed then was a string of unsuitable and frankly unsatisfying relationships, the last of which terminated with her being chased down a tunnel in Paris.
Letting it all hang out is not what it is cracked up to be. The Alexandra's of this world were able to continue their reigns as Princesses of Wales and later became queens despite their marital problems. Diana's fate is infinitely worse on a personal level. Of course she became famous and had an army of devotees, but that is very scant consolation for a messed up personal life. Maybe if Diana had gone to see her relatives during the difficult moments of her life and kept her own counsel, she might have just had a different outcome. Maybe if she had used KP or Althorpe as her bolthole (like Raymill House), she might have found ways of dealing with the daily grind of being married to someone that is not particularly in love with her and with whom she shared few interests.
Not everybody that remains married today has the picture-book romance with a spouse that is totally in love and totally attentive to them. Some people have really challenging marriages or marriages that start out with challenges and end up being fine. Others deal with and see off mistresses. Unfortunately Diana read and believed in too much Barbara Cartland. She was never going to be able to sustain a long term relationship if she followed such sentimental rubbish. Even the author herself hinted that Diana should not have read too many of her books.
The marriage was lost forever when Charles would not let go of the mistress. Camilla was not one that could be seen off. The Barbara Cartland novel bit was a phase. Diana was not seen with Cartland novels when she got older. I don't think Diana believed in Cartland after a while and no she did not "follow it." Cartland was Diana's step grandmother and the novels were at her disposal.
Charles was unrealistic and did not read Cartland novels. He thought the wife would be willing to share him with another woman. And believed it was OK for his friends to share their wives. Cartland seems very tame compared to CHarles fractured fairy tale.
Hasnet Khan was suitable, a respected physician. He was a step up from Charles IMO title or no title.
I am responding to
@Curryong as follows:
Diana paid a very heavy price for letting it all hang out. It piled on her misery instead of bringing her relief. The marriage she wanted to save was lost forever. She lost allies within the royal family and was pushed out (even though some of her fans continue in this delusional fiction that her divorce meant that she was embraced into the royal fold). She lost her HRH title and the status that went with it. What followed then was a string of unsuitable and frankly unsatisfying relationships, the last of which terminated with her being chased down a tunnel in Paris.
Letting it all hang out is not what it is cracked up to be. The Alexandra's of this world were able to continue their reigns as Princesses of Wales and later became queens despite their marital problems. Diana's fate is infinitely worse on a personal level. Of course she became famous and had an army of devotees, but that is very scant consolation for a messed up personal life. Maybe if Diana had gone to see her relatives during the difficult moments of her life and kept her own counsel, she might have just had a different outcome. Maybe if she had used KP or Althorpe as her bolthole (like Raymill House), she might have found ways of dealing with the daily grind of being married to someone that is not particularly in love with her and with whom she shared few interests.
Not everybody that remains married today has the picture-book romance with a spouse that is totally in love and totally attentive to them. Some people have really challenging marriages or marriages that start out with challenges and end up being fine. Others deal with and see off mistresses. Unfortunately Diana read and believed in too much Barbara Cartland. She was never going to be able to sustain a long term relationship if she followed such sentimental rubbish. Even the author herself hinted that Diana should not have read too many of her books.
[/quote]
Oh, Royal, for heaven's sake. So your contention is that because she was no longer a member of the Royal family Diana's life was virtually over and she was going to sink into some obscure pit of depression and misery because she was no longer married to the Prince of Wales? That she was doomed to an endless string of failed love affairs as a divorced woman? She was only 36 when she died and might well have known immense happiness and contentment.
There was barely a year between her divorce and her death. We don't know what her life would have been like had she lived. And if she had continued her charitable endeavours and still maintained huge worldwide popularity that may well have posed a problem for Charles and his second wife. He couldn't divorce her twice, and the BRF wouldn't be able to control many of her activities in the way they had when the pair were married. A live Diana could well have given Charles a few headaches in the regaining of his popularity department.
Alex's relatives were less detached than Diana's and could provide whole countries as sanctuaries, ie Greece, Denmark. Diana wanted a bolthole at Althorp but her brother wasn't willing to provide one, citing concerns over photographers, media and security. If Diana had lived she may have bought a home in the US, who knows. As for her having a bolthole in KP her apartment was her main home. Camilla only got Raymill because Charles and some of his friends paid for it.
Alex and Bertie lived virtually separate lives. She lived very quietly at Sandringham,because of her congenital deafness. Her marriage was just an empty shell. You may think that the retention of status and rank was well worth it for her. I think quite frankly she'd have preferred a happy marriage, myself. In those days appearance was everything.The public weren't allowed to know. Hypocrisy reigned. It was a very different world in the 1980's and 90's. Young women just weren't prepared to put up with that sort of scenario any more
Having a shell of a marriage in order to maintain appearances ultimately wasn't Diana's way, and it wouldn't be mine. I don't believe in sweeping things under the carpet like a man marrying for heirs and convenience and not for love, and keeping another woman in his heart while proposing to a very young woman who believed in him and loved him. Keeping things quiet and nicey nicey for public consumption while miserable as hell inside. You and I, Royal will never agree on that because I simply don't feel that the game would be worth the candle.
So if Diana wanted that life of a carefree independent woman, it was very foolish of her to accept Prince Charles' proposal. That is not an ordinary marriage. To pretend otherwise was the height of delusion. The principal and primary role of the wife of the heir to the throne is to produce a legitimate heir. Beyond that, they are supposed to support the monarchy. This was not a Disney fairy tale and thinking it was was Diana's biggest mistake.
As for Diana's happiness, I maintain that Diana remain unhappy right up to the end. She had worked with her enemies and enemies of Charles in such a way that she made the marriage or any compromise impossible. She had given up her title and position on a whim. She had taken on a frightening world of vultures and press intrusion which was not giving her any peace. Above all she had participated in traducing and smearing her ex husband to the extent that they could not have a civilized relationship any more. All for what....to let it all hang out and let the world see her pain? The outpouring of sympathy would never bring Charles or her marriage back.
I think those stunts of her inviting photographers on the yacht and promising them "something surprising" and what she would do next speak of someone that was still lonely. A happy person would just have gone on quietly with her holiday. Instead she called the press in and started giving them instructions on the best pictures to take. The poses were designed to seek attention and reportedly wipe Camilla off the front pages, not the behavior of a happy and contended woman but one who is desperate to remain relevant in her ex's life. This was her last and most tragic attempt to upstage Charles. Even now
@Curryong muses about how Diana might have successfully upstaged Charles and Camilla in the media (btw PR victories are no substitute for personal happiness, as Diana's life showed). That is not the wish, ambition or behavior of someone that is happy with their life. If you are spending your precious time trying to upstage your ex and his new girlfriend it is a clear indicator that you are a very unhappy person.
Diana was devastated by the 50th birthday that Charles held for Camilla. She knew (much better than some of her most ardent fans it seems) that Charles was not the ogre that she had painted in her spiteful books and interviews. She knew that he had tried to make the marriage work even if he was not in love with her. She knew that he had tried to help but she had been unwell and had rebuffed his efforts. She knew that the marriage failed because of both their faults and not because of Charles or Camilla alone. And of course she knew that he was the only man among her lovers who could be with her for an extended period of time. Diana had unilaterally surrendered her marriage and title for a Pyrrhic PR victory with Morton and Bashir. She was outside the cocoon of royal protection and the press was going to have a field day with her.
Her impulsive vengefulness had cost her a lot and all for nothing. Her new life (beyond the kids) was uncertain. Khan had gone and Dodi was very poor compensation for the loss of the Prince of Wales. She was on the verge of being attacked in the press. The sour grapes thing was just a form of reassurance to make people believe that she was not bothered by the divorce. She was bothered by the divorce and later on she was realizing the monumental mistake she had made in precipitating that divorce. Charles was now openly with Camilla, yet she (who feared abandonment ) was effectively without a long term relationship.
As Diana knew very well, it was only a matter of time before Charles married Camilla. Her love rival whom she had worked so had to destroy in her press offings was going to be the Princess of Wales and the next queen. A happy marriage between Charles and Camilla would disprove the big myth Diana had created that Charles was a bad man who was incapable of having a happy marriage or loving anyone (I get often see some pathetic reassurances by some Diana fans that "Charles only loves himself" or alternatively suggestions that he "only gets on with Fawcett" i.e. he is a gay guy who sleeps with women. They want to keep the myth going even if everything else disproves it).
I know some people are going to have a meltdown about this message but there is nothing I can do. It is what it is. I apologize for busting the bubble and bringing another perspective to the echo chamber but it is my opinion.
As for
@sandy. This statement is very typical of Diana fans
"Hasnet Khan was suitable, a respected physician. He was a step up from Charles IMO title or no title."
That relationship failed, FAILED, FAILED. He never proposed or married her or stayed with her for as long as Charles. Saying that Khan is a step up to the future King of England is really out of this world...even you know that sounds ridiculous.
All this may be true but it has nothing to do with the topic
I am responding
@amabel. Responding to a post by curryong. Very soon people will just stop commenting in order to stick to the rules.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on whether Diana would have achieved happiness had she lived. I believe she would have. You do not but then you dislike Diana intensely. In the end your opinion is just that, an opinion.
What's more, alive or dead, she produced the heir to the throne after Charles, and the spare. It's her blood that will flow through the Kings of England for the next two generations, and beyond, not Camilla's. For all your praise of Camilla, HER children and grandchildren and their children will fade into obscurity. Diana's won't.
And Charles's heir adores his mother, talks often of her and is I'm sure teaching his children about her. You can attack Diana as much as you like, and you do, but she will be the mother and grandmother of Kings and will remain a significant historical figure.
I know Roya but I thought that it had been agreed to stick to the Diana's education topic and leave stuff about her later life to antotehr thread. I think that in any case the Diana and education topic has been thrashed out, she didn't do well at school.. simply.
No. I don't dislike Diana intensely
@Curryong. It is just that I don't wear rose-tinted glasses when talking about her. There is good and bad, just like everybody.
As for the heirs and fame; once again we go back to this. Being famous does not bring you happiness. Many, many celebrities know this. I am sure most people would prefer to be happy than to be famous.
The sweeping statement that Camilla's descendants will fade into obscurity or that Diana's blood will flow through all the future kings of England is a tad premature. History has shown us that we know nothing. One of the strongest blood claimants to the British throne is an obscure farmer in Australia whilst a family descended from German immigrants reigns supreme...so do not take the ironies of fate too lightly. :hehe: Elizabeth II was once destined for a life of obscurity as a daughter to the second son. Look where it all ended
And when have you ever seriously criticised Charles for anything? Oh yes, the rose coloured glasses firmly in place there! And the Aussie farmer is a claimant whose bloodline doesn't run in the legitimate line.
The eyes see what they want to see. I have critiqued Charles many, many, many times. It is just that some people are not satisfied with anything but a description of a mythical ogre that the press and Diana described to them. Charles is not a bad man. He just made some poor decisions about his love life.
While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!
Junor dismisses the weirdness of Charles domestic arrangements with Camilla when she was married to someone else. Charles gets many free passes.
Quote from: Duch_Luver_4ever on July 09, 2017, 04:03:50 AM
Agreed @TLLK it was an example of how she could be willful, even at a young age. I recall I have another post to catch up on where another poster doubted her willful nature as a young adult, when she had given many examples of it, be it her opinion on the wedding vows, her "chief chick" sign in her apartment, her opinions on her pregnancy and childbirth, as well as how William would be raised, not to mention her cleaning out Charles's staff (at least as far as Mr, Barry said, as I recall he said he never met someone so determined as Diana).
But it was often a double edged sword and could work against her as well, especially later in life.
Yes it can be a double edged sword. On one hand it can keep you focused and determined to succeed and on the other it can keep you isolated from solid advice and trouble.
IT was not exactly revolutionary back then for the word "obey" to be left out of the wedding vows (Diana did not want it in). However, it raised more eyebrows when Fergie wanted obey in her wedding vows. So I don't think Diana was all that willful about it. Diana did not have much say on the delivery and agreed to time the birth of William around Charles polo games. DIana was no so "revolutionary" at the beginning of the marriage.
Quote from: Curryong on July 09, 2017, 04:52:52 PM
While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!
well she was uneducated and possibly not vey clever. And while mentailly ill is an emotive term, I think she did have psychological problems. and I dotn believe she was "determined to wreck the monarchy " but she was reckless in what she did, attacking it.
And yiou yourself as I recall stated tat she was unwilling ot try at things which she found difficult...
I don't think DIana had "psychological problems" or was "mentally ill." Her friends and employers did not say there was "something wrong" with DIana before her marriage to Charles. DIana managed to live on her own away from her parents (she did not need any "keepers") and took on some part time jobs. Her employers had nothing but good things to say about Diana. And she got along well with her flatmates. Diana was expected to marry well as were her sisters. Diana's sister Sarah had anorexia nervosa but nobody called her "mentally ill." I think it unfair to label Diana that way. Even if someone has "psychological problems" it does not give the man an excuse to cheat. The vows say in sickness and in health. Or does it whitewash a man keeping a married mistress (someone married to his "good friend)." Diana probably would have let well enough alone had Charles friends not leaked nasty stories about her to the press back in the eighties. Camilla also went to the Sun Editor with "her side". Diana did try things she found difficult and got more confident as she got older. Charles' mistake was not going for counseling to try to work out things with his wife. Instead he moaned and whined to his friends (some letters came into public domain) and his friends started attacking Diana and leaking stories. I think Charles had some unresolved issues. He wanted his flesh and blood heirs and married only for expediency's sake and did not think that perhaps his wife would mind his lifestyle having married mistresses and being "civilized". Which is why a main problem was Charles not putting everything out on the table to Diana and telling her specifically all he expected in their marriage. Before proposing.
Quote from: amabel on July 09, 2017, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: Curryong on July 09, 2017, 04:52:52 PM
While Diana has been described as dumb, uneducated, mentally ill, determined to wreck the monarchy, unwilling to learn anything and the wife and ex wife from hell. Charles apparently has no character flaws whatsoever, he's just a man 'who made bad decisions about his love life!
well she was uneducated and possibly not vey clever. And while mentailly ill is an emotive term, I think she did have psychological problems. and I dotn believe she was "determined to wreck the monarchy " but she was reckless in what she did, attacking it.
And yiou yourself as I recall stated tat she was unwilling ot try at things which she found difficult...
I was trying to be fair. But of course I should have realised that it would be turned against me at every conceivable opportunity, while Diana gets constantly put in a bad light. Every minute detail of Diana's life and actions gets criticised by you and Royal while Charles and Camilla get one 5000th of that sort of minute examination.
Where are the pages and pages of threads about Charles and Camilla and their actions and motivations? His self pity and dithering and indecision and put downs of Diana during their married life? Her callousness and manipulation and disdain for her lover's wife? Non-existent!
Oh Yes of course it has to be remembered, doesn't it, that Diana was 110% at fault for what happened during the Wales marriage and before, (possibly more, perhaps 1 millionth per cent) while Charles and Camilla have no blame whatsoever to be attributed to them. Ever. Every action of theirs was so completely selfless. Those two ought to be christened The Untouchables as far as you and Royal are concerned!
I have put my response in the Digest rather than here.
well since this thread is about Diana, and Di is, for all her faults perhaps the more intriguing individual, its natural that she gets a lot of discussion.I dot see all this attacking her that others see. But I think that when people make extravagant claims, that are dubious or not true, it is bound to attract people who reply and state that the claims are not accurate. When people say "Diana left money to charity".. its easily provable that she didn't. It doesn't mean she was a bad person, it just is a proven fact that she did not leave anyting to charity. When people says she was a wonderful angel and 100 times beter than Charles, I tink that is very debatable and of course it is going to attract debate..
Quote from: amabel on July 10, 2017, 06:31:30 AM
well since this thread is about Diana, and Di is, for all her faults perhaps the more intriguing individual, its natural that she gets a lot of discussion.I dot see all this attacking her that others see. But I think that when people make extravagant claims, that are dubious or not true, it is bound to attract people who reply and state that the claims are not accurate. When people say "Diana left money to charity".. its easily provable that she didn't. It doesn't mean she was a bad person, it just is a proven fact that she did not leave anyting to charity. When people says she was a wonderful angel and 100 times beter than Charles, I tink that is very debatable and of course it is going to attract debate..
I see a lot of nit picking about Diana. She died young. The will could have been changed down the road. She had no clue she was going to die at age 36. Maybe if she had had a terminal illness she would have left money to charity, knowing when she would die. She put a lot of her time into charity work which Camilla did not do in the time before 1997 when Bolland started working with her. I doubt Camilla will leave one penny to charity. Diana certainly contributed her fair share even in her last year when she donated the gowns go be auctioned for Charity. She did not keep them for herself.
I don't get the wish for Diana by some to be a total failure, losing wars and so on. The woman died at age 36.
Charles and Camilla lost the war in the sense that with all the megabucks spent on spin, not everybody loves them to say the least. The Junor book is getting slammed because she makes Camilla a saint.