Shy Di

[LouisFerdinand]

Was it fair that Lady Diana Spencer was referred to as Shy Di?     
:girlblush: :girlblush: :girlblush: :girlblush: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :girlblush: :girlblush: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh:

[TLLK]

Well she did display her shy side  at times especially during their courtship, after the engagement, and during the first few years of her marriage. Later as she grew more confident in her role, I believe it was easier for her to hide those feelings. Like QEII, the PoW, and her sons Diana did have  a shy side to her personality.

So yes I believe it was a true assessment when she first received the nickname, though I don't know if she liked it.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Ah, @LouisFerdinand has served up a delicious softball question for xmas. Oh my goodness yes in those early years especially, it was extremely fair to call her shy Di. She was a master of the head down/eyes up look to both hide her height, and also I think to both charm and beguile people into helping her.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00354/F_200708_August31ed_354483a.jpg  :crazylove:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/71/f4/5c/71f45c9dc0d1cc756b234689a7b6e7ae.jpg (Montague,PEI, the day after I met her, ahhhhh)

I'll be doing a thread later on my theory on it, but yes, she could be both incredibly shy, but yet at the same time extremely glamorous such as wearing "that dress" that amazing black taffeta dress, like all things Diana, its incredibly complex.

Watch her going in and giving her first speech in Cardiff, Wales. The head of birthright had mentioned how shy she was the first time she did an engagement for them, constantly asking if she was doing it right, etc. and then years later she was so much more confident, and held her nose and said "lets plunge in" and she worked the room with utter confidence.

For sure, the shyness was part of her charm, people just wanted to know everything about her, and were wanting the best for her. Think about it, as improbable as it would have been in reality, she was able to inspire an 11 yr old boy to want to protect and nurture her. Sadly for her, her charms worked on everyone but the one man who mattered most to her. :flower: Heres some more lovely pics of her shyness, enjoy the loveliness  :xmas21:

LadyDianaSpencer-1980-1981236.jpg Photo by dawngallick | Photobucket

LadyDianaSpencer-1980-1981270.jpg Photo by dawngallick | Photobucket

LadyDianaSpencer-1980-198128.jpg Photo by dawngallick | Photobucket

LadyDianaSpencer-1980-1981287.jpg Photo by dawngallick | Photobucket

LadyDianaSpencer-1980-1981317.jpg Photo by dawngallick | Photobucket

Lady Diana Spencer Video by dawngallick | Photobucket

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9d/08/92/9d0892171b72fdf230fc8e876bf8aaa5.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6d/67/b0/6d67b079e2fbb2180b44ab13d3693108.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c3/a4/6f/c3a46f628a9e91d0f534105347b20187.jpg (theres a better one in Edmonton 83, I believe i posted it in another thread of why i like this pic where its a close up of her much like the top pic).

[LouisFerdinand]

As she first arrived at St. Paul's Cathedral, Diana has her head down, thus a shy bride.   
Princess Diana's Wedding ?zle | Vidivodo

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I think she also had to look down to manage the steps and get all that fabric unfurled after being squashed in the carriage, but she looked absolutely wonderful coming out of her carriage, theres a lovely shot of her on the other side where she smiles and laughs as they get the train out of the carriage.

[LouisFerdinand]

Let us look at the shyness of Diana.   
Shy Di - YouTube

[michelle0187]

I don't think she liked the nickname Di but she was very shy throughout the early eighties so shy di  had a ring to it. Shy dutch or diana, not so much. At least her shyness made people feel like they could connect with her as a normal person , who they thought at the time would've been the next queen of england. It's interesting how her shyness caused more attention because the brf prefers royal wives to not outshine their husbands so shyness would be a plus.

[sandy]

I think that's why people took to her, she was a natural, did not put on "regal" heirs, and people identified with her. Her sidelong glances I think was another reason she was called "shy Di." Charles had an unfortunate jealousy of her even on their first walkabout as an engaged couple. He said he will get used to the press ignoring him and seeing only photographers backs when Diana was around. I think Charles should have gotten his attitude sorted out. Diana would have had to scowl at the public or aloof or wear a bag over her head to keep her from being appealing to the public. Charles was used to being the center of the Universe and unfortunately that carried over into his first marriage. A shy person can be appealing to the public too. Diana was very friendly and related to the public even on her very first walkabouts. George VI had a very popular wife who yes, could have been said to 'overshadow' him but he was smart enough to appreciate her and admire her way with the public on walkabouts. Too bad he did not live longer to set his grandson straight.

[royalanthropologist]

I have been reading the most shocking book ever written about Diana. It is by Sally Bedell Smith and is titled "Diana in Search of Herself". Wow, wow, wow. If even 30% of that book is true then what Diana needed was care; not public scrutiny. I wonder whether people here have read the book. It speaks to me of a very troubled soul. The author goes as far as suggesting BPD, although I am always skeptical of remote control diagnoses.
Double post auto-merged: January 28, 2017, 06:48:09 AM

In terms of George and Elizabeth; the press then was not trying to undermine the royal in order to promote his wife back then. At the time the press merely tried to bolster and support a royal couple who might have faced a backlash for usurping the first king. They rightly pointed out that Elizabeth was a great queen consort who always put her husband first and respected him. She never gloried in his weaknesses or even exposed them to the world so that they could laugh at him.

The Murdoch press deliberately tried to denigrate, trivialize, abuse and satirize Charles whilst simultaneously glorifying his wife Diana. It was never about team work but putting down the man and using his wife to put down the institution in which she had married. Later on Diana joined the fray and became an instrument of exploitative republican movements. Reading the press in the 1980s, you would think that Charles did nothing but talk to his plants. The opposite is true. This has been the best educated, most involved and successful Prince of Wales ever. Diana was not really a supportive wife when the press started to put down her husband. She gleefully joined in as a means of taking revenge on him for leaving her.  Elizabeth was never like that. She supported her husband to the very end. She certainly never gave any interviews airing the family dirty laundry or collaborated with the media on such schemes. 

[Curryong]

George and Elizabeth had a happy marriage. They were a good team. However, they lived in very different times. The Press as it was then would never have criticised any Royal person as the tabloids did during the War of The Wales's.

The only other media during most of the King's lifetime was the hushed and deferential tones of the BBC. That was under the control of the dour Lord Reith, who would have slit his throat before daring to criticise a Royal, especially his King. I remember the genteel announcers of 1950's radio and TV.

It was long before and a world away from the Dirty Digger Rupert Murdoch and the Sun and that ilk. So the King and Queen could in theory have hated and loathed each other and said so to courtiers and no-one else  in the Kingdom would have known! 

Of course they didn't, but it has to be remembered that George never put his wife down in public or in front of others, never made fun of her lack of education or intellect and was never unfaithful to her. The Queen of course replicated this and was a great support to him.

However the Duke of York wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. He wasn't having an affair with a married woman he adored shortly before his engagement. His aunt didn't say of him on engagement eve to friends, as Margaret did about Charles, that she wondered whether his lover would give him up.

Yes, I have read Sally Bedell Smith's book and I enjoyed it. However, almost all biographers have a hook to their books and Sally's was that Diana had a personality disorder. Now, I don't know whether Diana did or didn't suffer from this disorder. I didn't know Diana and I'm not a psychiatrist. Similarly SBS didn't know Diana and isn't a mental health professional either.

[royalanthropologist]

I agree @Curryong. Charles really did insult his first wife in the most shocking ways so definitely that did not help. I have this idea that if the press were not so intrusive and destructive then perhaps they might have grown to work together. It seemed that everybody (including the public) was working to emphasize the differences between the couple instead of bringing them together. Diana said that they ended up losing steam because of the pressure.

[amabel]

George and Elizabeth had a happy marriage. They were a good team. However, they lived in very different times. The Press as it was then would never have criticised any Royal person as the tabloids did during the War of The Wales's.

The only other media during most of the King's lifetime was the hushed and deferential tones of the BBC. That was under the control of the dour Lord Reith, who would have slit his throat before daring to criticise a Royal, especially his King. I remember the genteel announcers of 1950's radio and TV.

It was long before and a world away from the Dirty Digger Rupert Murdoch and the Sun and that ilk. So the King and Queen could in theory have hated and loathed each other and said so to courtiers and no-one else  in the Kingdom would have known! 

Of course they didn't, but it has to be remembered that George never put his wife down in public or in front of others, never made fun of her lack of education or intellect and was never unfaithful to her. The Queen of course replicated this and was a great support to him.

However the Duke of York wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. He wasn't having an affair with a married woman he adored shortly before his engagement. His aunt didn't say of him on engagement eve to friends, as Margaret did about Charles, that she wondered whether his lover would give him up.

Yes, I have read Sally Bedell Smith's book and I enjoyed it. However, almost all biographers have a hook to their books and Sally's was that Diana had a personality disorder. Now, I don't know whether Diana did or didn't suffer from this disorder. I didn't know Diana and I'm not a psychiatrist. Similarly SBS didn't know Diana and isn't a mental health professional either.

I felt tht the book was unfair, but all the same Diana did have psychological problems and a poor education which made her volatile and she didn't always act wisely.  there were other ways of dealing with the bad marriage ad she IMO chose just about the worst one.

[sandy]

I have been reading the most shocking book ever written about Diana. It is by Sally Bedell Smith and is titled "Diana in Search of Herself". Wow, wow, wow. If even 30% of that book is true then what Diana needed was care; not public scrutiny. I wonder whether people here have read the book. It speaks to me of a very troubled soul. The author goes as far as suggesting BPD, although I am always skeptical of remote control diagnoses.
Double post auto-merged: January 28, 2017, 06:48:09 AM

In terms of George and Elizabeth; the press then was not trying to undermine the royal in order to promote his wife back then. At the time the press merely tried to bolster and support a royal couple who might have faced a backlash for usurping the first king. They rightly pointed out that Elizabeth was a great queen consort who always put her husband first and respected him. She never gloried in his weaknesses or even exposed them to the world so that they could laugh at him.

I don't see Charles as an intellectual, he had many mentors, some flawed. He got so so grades at University. In many ways I think Diana was much smarter.

Of course Diana was "troubled" who wouldn't be? THe man preferred another woman, he got jealous of her, and was and is very self centered. Pre marriage accounts of Diana by employers and friends so not indicate any "trouble."  Charles needed a wife to get heirs, he took it from there and the wife seemed to be only secondary to his reasons to marry
The Murdoch press deliberately tried to denigrate, trivialize, abuse and satirize Charles whilst simultaneously glorifying his wife Diana. It was never about team work but putting down the man and using his wife to put down the institution in which she had married. Later on Diana joined the fray and became an instrument of exploitative republican movements. Reading the press in the 1980s, you would think that Charles did nothing but talk to his plants. The opposite is true. This has been the best educated, most involved and successful Prince of Wales ever. Diana was not really a supportive wife when the press started to put down her husband. She gleefully joined in as a means of taking revenge on him for leaving her.  Elizabeth was never like that. She supported her husband to the very end. She certainly never gave any interviews airing the family dirty laundry or collaborated with the media on such schemes. 

Bedell Smith had an axe to grind. Her book was criticized for its bias. BTW the Borderline Personality diagnosis was from Jonathan Dimbleby who was no psychologist. He looked in a textbook and wrote that Diana displayed symptoms. However, that said, he was planning to put this in his 1994 biography of Charles. He didn't because he would know that DIana would have sued him in all likelihood since there was NEVER any professional diagnosis of it. Diana was diagnosed with Bulimia Nervosa and got it under control. Penny Junor a fan of C and C grabbed the "diagnosis" and used it after Diana passed on in Charles Victim or Villain. Bedell Smith similarly used it and I am disappointed people believe the rubbish. BTW Bedell Smith was the one who found out that Camilla went to the Sun Editor Stuart Higgins (from HIggins himself) for ten years to give "her side." Sarah Bradford and others have used this revelation. Bedell Smith did a hatchet job on Diana in her biography of QE II.

If you read Charles authorized biography he does not come off as exactly healthy he whines and moans about his lot and trashes his parents. And it shows that the man was and is very self centered. I think Charles needed help himself before he even thought of marrying anybody. His mistress Camilla resembled his beloved Nanny Mabel Anderson.

Diana was not perfect but posthumous diagnoses  by Charles pals are downright tacky.

Diana wanted to be a supportive wife but Charles made it clear he preferred the other woman. And he needed to get control of his jealousy and pettiness. Even when DIana was on their first walkabout, he could not stand the teenager getting more attention. There are two sides to everything. His grandfather appreciated his wife and it is clear Charles saw her as his "rival" from the get go. Charles had issues that never got straightened out. How was the teenage Diana going to "support" him if he had this attitude. She was eager to please back then. Shouldn't Charles also have supported her. His grandfather supported his wife. Marriage is not a one way street.

Charles' own behavior caused the press criticism. He sent letters to his friends as early as 1983 complaining about Diana getting attention. His friends put down the wife to please the great man. It ended up with his pals leaking nasty stories about Diana. ANd where was Charles's defense of his wife against these charges? I believe he condoned them as he condones the books by Junor and put downs of his late ex by his own cousin to the press.
Double post auto-merged: January 28, 2017, 01:01:06 PM

George and Elizabeth had a happy marriage. They were a good team. However, they lived in very different times. The Press as it was then would never have criticised any Royal person as the tabloids did during the War of The Wales's.

The only other media during most of the King's lifetime was the hushed and deferential tones of the BBC. That was under the control of the dour Lord Reith, who would have slit his throat before daring to criticise a Royal, especially his King. I remember the genteel announcers of 1950's radio and TV.

It was long before and a world away from the Dirty Digger Rupert Murdoch and the Sun and that ilk. So the King and Queen could in theory have hated and loathed each other and said so to courtiers and no-one else  in the Kingdom would have known! 

Of course they didn't, but it has to be remembered that George never put his wife down in public or in front of others, never made fun of her lack of education or intellect and was never unfaithful to her. The Queen of course replicated this and was a great support to him.

However the Duke of York wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. He wasn't having an affair with a married woman he adored shortly before his engagement. His aunt didn't say of him on engagement eve to friends, as Margaret did about Charles, that she wondered whether his lover would give him up.

Yes, I have read Sally Bedell Smith's book and I enjoyed it. However, almost all biographers have a hook to their books and Sally's was that Diana had a personality disorder. Now, I don't know whether Diana did or didn't suffer from this disorder. I didn't know Diana and I'm not a psychiatrist. Similarly SBS didn't know Diana and isn't a mental health professional either.

I felt tht the book was unfair, but all the same Diana did have psychological problems and a poor education which made her volatile and she didn't always act wisely.  there were other ways of dealing with the bad marriage ad she IMO chose just about the worst one.

Charles I think had problems. And Diana's diagnoses of having "problems" came on after she passed on and were from Charles pals and sympathizers. Charles chose the worst way to deal with his wife and the bad marriage. He chose the worst way and still does.
Double post auto-merged: January 28, 2017, 01:04:06 PM

George and Elizabeth had a happy marriage. They were a good team. However, they lived in very different times. The Press as it was then would never have criticised any Royal person as the tabloids did during the War of The Wales's.

The only other media during most of the King's lifetime was the hushed and deferential tones of the BBC. That was under the control of the dour Lord Reith, who would have slit his throat before daring to criticise a Royal, especially his King. I remember the genteel announcers of 1950's radio and TV.

It was long before and a world away from the Dirty Digger Rupert Murdoch and the Sun and that ilk. So the King and Queen could in theory have hated and loathed each other and said so to courtiers and no-one else  in the Kingdom would have known! 

Of course they didn't, but it has to be remembered that George never put his wife down in public or in front of others, never made fun of her lack of education or intellect and was never unfaithful to her. The Queen of course replicated this and was a great support to him.

However the Duke of York wanted desperately to marry Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. He wasn't having an affair with a married woman he adored shortly before his engagement. His aunt didn't say of him on engagement eve to friends, as Margaret did about Charles, that she wondered whether his lover would give him up.

Yes, I have read Sally Bedell Smith's book and I enjoyed it. However, almost all biographers have a hook to their books and Sally's was that Diana had a personality disorder. Now, I don't know whether Diana did or didn't suffer from this disorder. I didn't know Diana and I'm not a psychiatrist. Similarly SBS didn't know Diana and isn't a mental health professional either.

Diana was never diagnosed with BPD. Actually the Duke of York WAS having an affair with a married woman. He wisely dropped her before he got serious about Lady Elizabeth. His father sat him down and spoke to him about the affair and how he should drop the relationship. His son listened and did drop his married mistress. Charles never did which doomed the marriage. And this was not in any tabloid book, it was in the authorized biography of the QUeen Mum by Shawcross. It was very enlightening to read that, since Charles' granddad was a lot more sensible and better husband material.

[Trudie]

If Diana were still alive these so called authors would not put out these misinformed diagnosis. Diana sought help for her postnatal depression and her bulimia. Diana was open and honest about her struggles. The authors that put out these armchair diagnosis didn't dare write such trivial while Diana was HRH and Alive the first because of deference to the crown and not losing their livelihood and second because of libel. Once Diana lost the HRH and was dead it became open season with this borderline personality disorder as a wonderful label to back up fifteen years of the Highgrove set putting Diana in a unfavorable light because she saw how they used Charles and herself for their own gain especially giving safe houses to Charles and Cams. Personally I choose to believe Diana regarding her mental health not some author out to score brownie points and to sell their book.

[TLLK]

 A great round of discussion from everyone on this topic!  :thumbsup: As to Diana's mental health issues I was happy to see her finally receiving quality care with her eating disorder from Dr. Lipsedge. He was the same psychiatrist who had successfully treated Sarah. Going public with this news took courage but in the end likely helped others who were suffering the same. It is a shame that Diana was used by the press and various biographers when they built her up only to tear her down once the divorce was finalized. IMO they were concerned about losing the consumer who had happily purchased books, newspapers, and magazines when she was the Princess of Wales. Now they had a new angle to push and it was not a pretty one, but it sold so why should the press care.

In regards  to Charles they could just continue writing the same type of articles but since his stories didn't bring in the same revenue as Diana's they needed to continue their focus upon her but with a negative spin.

[Curryong]

I have Shawcross's book on the QM and have also read the biography of Sheila Loughborough and her affair with Bertie (King George VI.) I didn't mention it in my post because the affair between them was well over (in 1920/21) by the time Bertie fell in love with Elizabeth. The main point I wanted to get across was the contrast between the two couples (George/Elizabeth and Charles/Diana) and the fact that Bertie wasn't emotionally In thrall to another woman when he was about to become engaged, as Charles was.

[sandy]

Right. But had he not dropped the married woman, he would have been courting Elizabeth with the "baggage" of having a married woman on the side. Charles if he had given up Camilla before he courted Diana or any other woman would have been much better off for obvious reasons. It was said Bertie was attached to the married woman but he was able to walk away.  But Charles could have given up Camilla after she married someone else and made married women (Kanga also) off limits and courted the suitable girl without the attachment to the married women.

[LouisFerdinand]

Diana was demure and blushed as she posed for her engagement pictures.   
Would shy Diana have believed at the time that crowds of people would want to get a glimpse of her on a walkabout?

[Curryong]

On the first tour for the couple (in Wales) following their marriage, Diana was terrified of the huge crowds that turned up to see her at every spot. She reportedly dissolved into tears at times and Charles and others had to persuade her out of the car. So no, as a young girl of 19/20, I don't think Diana had any idea of the madness that was to follow within months. Nor do I think anyone else was prepared for the onslaught, not even the press, which had prepared the ground. However, they were highly delighted with the results.

[amabel]

The Press were pleased of course. They had a beautiful charming young woman whose face on the front page would sell millions.  but I think the RF and Chalres were a bit uneasy about the massive manical popularity, that ti was a strain on Diana and that it might be a case of "adored and then turned on" as is often the case with popular figures and the British Press.

[LouisFerdinand]

The Mirror referred to Lady Diana as "DIvine".

[amabel]

yes and "Disco Di" and Di-namic no doubt.  the puns were endless... better to forget them.

[LouisFerdinand]

@amabel, There are individuals who will always want to recall all the nicknames that Lady/Princess Diana had.