Princess Michael of Kent: Princess Diana ‘did not have much of an education’

wenn20762362

This story reminds me of the Vanity Fair interview done last year with the Mountbatten sisters, where Lady Pamela Hicks and Countess Mountbatten went on the record saying that Princess Diana was “spiteful and unkind.” And now here’s Princess Michael of Kent, the Queen’s cousin-in-law, putting her two cents in about Diana too. Princess Michael knew Diana reasonably well – Princess Michael lived in an apartment in Kensington Palace when Diana lived there too. Some even claimed that they were friends. But the royal family is like the mob, and once you’ve cut ties (through divorce or death, or in this case both), get ready to get slammed.

The Brits are in a frenzy Sunday morning following an unprecedented outburst by a member of the royal family. Queen Elizabeth‘s cousin, Princess Michael of Kent, went on television to promote her latest novel Saturday but the conversation quickly took an unexpected turn.

While insisting she was “very fond” of Princess Diana, Princess Michael launched into a slam against the way Prince Charles‘ late wife was raised and her lack of education, the MailOnline is reporting.

“She was my next door neighbour at Kensington Palace and I must say I was very fond of her, very attached to her. She had an enormous amount of goodness in her.

“Like probably many people of little education who find themselves, like pop stars or film stars, suddenly lauded by the whole world, it is very difficult if you have not had a mother bringing you up who was quite stern and strict. She did not have a mother bring her up and she did not have much education, so it is much harder to cope with eulogy.

“She had her two sisters but they were doing their own thing and she was the youngest and on her own, and her mother went to Australia when she was 10 years old or something and that is tough. Sarah Ferguson had the same thing. Her mother went off to Buenos Aires when she was very young.”

To make matters even worse, Princess Michael then went after Diana’s former in-laws.

“Of course we’re thrilled to have a beautiful young married couple with a baby. Let’s hope there are more marriages soon because I think to have that young generation is terribly good for people. The people love to see happy young people and I think the older generation are a bit boring for most people.

The royal cousin is a big fan of Prince William and Kate Middleton but that was not enough to win Princess Michael any fans with her opinions.

One royal biographer gave her TV interview a one-word review, “Rubbish!”

[From Radar and Express]

Well, Diana would have been the first to say that she lacked a proper education, and it’s true that her mom wasn’t around to raise her and that Diana’s childhood sucked – although Princess Michael is making it sound like that’s on Diana. When she was older, Diana did study and work and try to improve herself and she had the added benefit of oodles of emotional intelligence too. Basically, Princess Michael’s criticism sounds like “Diana got full of herself when she was the most famous woman in the world and Diana was so self-absorbed because she was raised in a strict household.” Which is just a weird argument to make.

And yes, the older royals are a bit boring but I still appreciate the Queen. I feel like Princess Michael is teasing the idea of Harry’s wedding, right?

wenn20826904

wenn6209

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

116 Responses to “Princess Michael of Kent: Princess Diana ‘did not have much of an education’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LadySlippers says:

    I think most of Princess Michael’s words were taken out of context to be more ‘newsworthy’. If you read the original quotes it’s not nearly as bad as the headlines….

    • Esti says:

      I agree. I’d read headlines about this a day or two ago that made it sound like she slammed everyone, but this really wasn’t so bad. I think she sounds very sympathetic to Diana. And while she probably shouldn’t have said it, it’s not exactly a shocking opinion that she thinks the young Royals get lots of positive attention for the family while the older Royals are seen as less exciting. The Palace has said similar things itself, just a lot more diplomatically.

      • Decloo says:

        Yes. To call it “an unprecedented outburst” is just silly. She clearly compliments Diana as well. I believe she was thinking of the younger generation of Brits when she called the old guard “boring.” She’s right. Will, Kate and Harry breathe new life into the family.

    • MrsB says:

      Agree. I don’t see what all the fuss is about, I really didn’t see anything in that piece where she was “slamming” her.

      • Original N says:

        Agree…nor did I interpret what Princess Michael said to be derogatory towards Diana at all – quite the opposite actually. It seemed to me that Princess Michael was trying to explain, and perhaps even excuse, why Diana may have acted in ways or made some of the decisions that were not well-received by the public or the royal family. It is a perspective that is incredibly congruent with someone who was fond of her, knew her, and understood her.

      • MrsB says:

        Yeah I felt like she was just stating what most people already knew, that because of her upbringing, Diana didn’t have the proper tools to deal with some of life’s challenges, much less the challenges of royal life. You are right, if anything she was trying to excuse her.

      • Malificent says:

        Agreed, I didn’t read it like a slam. She’s not stating anything new or anything that isn’t already part of the “public history” of Diana. And I think it was actually a pretty polite, round-about way of saying that Diana was insecure and not well-grounded without blaming Diana herself for a moral failing. If anything, it’s a slam against Diana’s parents for not being responsible or nurturing parents.

    • blue marie says:

      I always find it odd that people within the family are so quick to talk ‘smack’ (for lack of a better word) about the Princes mother, shouldn’t there be some level of respect to them? Or am I making something out of nothing? (and this isn’t directed specifically at her as I’ve seen various family members do it)

      • Juliette says:

        Yes, and if they are so quick to be harsh under the public glare, just think how they must spit fire behind closed doors.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Blue Marie, IMHO I don’t think Marie-Christine was talking smack. She and Diana were honestly friends and MC tends to be blunt when she speaks.

        I think this is the DM and media twisting this into something that it’s not.

    • Mel says:

      Well said.
      I am no fan of hers (or of Diana’s, for that matter), but I think her comments were – purposely, of course – taken out of context by certain tabloids and inflated beyond recognition. It is quite clear that she was referring to the possible public perception of the “older royals”, and she didn’t actually badmouth anyone, including Diana.

      Speaking of which… Diana may have had “oodles of emotional intelligence” – no argument there – but, as the extreme egocentric that she was, she failed to apply it remarkably often, as far as her friends and family were concerned. She may have had – or shown – lots of empathy with the poor and suffering, but had very little empathy for any human that she perceived as her “enemy” in any given situation. And she had LOTS of self-inflicted “enemies”.

    • FLORC says:

      Very true LadySlippers.
      Still, many will take these comments too literally and go off on the princess. No messes with the glorified and sometimes inaccurate memory of Diana!

      • sienna says:

        Love this comment! You could not be more right.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I think Florc that will be the excuse but the reality is simple: Marie-Christine’s words are bland at best. DM is trying to create excitement where none exists.

    • Suze says:

      I was all ready to post a comment about the delusional nature and publicity seeking ways of Princess Pushy until I read the article.

      It was pretty mild and factual, actually.

      ACUTE DISAPPOINTMENT! lol

      • LadySlippers says:

        My thoughts exactly.

      • John Wayne Lives says:

        This. I was glad that was mentioned. I went and read the article. It’s just dicey to say anything negative about the dead. Especially someone like Princess Diana. No matter who’s saying it or how softly it is said.

      • FLORC says:

        Me too Suze
        A little disappointed, but t least it’s honest.

  2. Red32 says:

    Well, she got married at 19 or 20, became a royal and got pregnant with William almost immediately, right? I doubt the palace was pushing her to go to a university.

    • Goofpuff says:

      I agree. back then they only wanted her to look pretty, have heirs, support Charles, and do charity work. they did not expect her to do so well and outshine them since they picked who they thought would be a meek mouse for Charles. boy were they wrong.

      • Mel says:

        In all fairness, she was old enough to have gone to university, had she wanted to.
        But people who appear to know her well will tell you that she herself only wanted to be liked and/or loved, and had no interest whatsoever in academic pursuits. She even relished making references to herself as “stupid” (“thick as a plank”, I believe her expression of choice was).

        Which is perfectly fine. That’s how she was, she made the best of it, and the world needs all kinds of people anyway.
        I am just saying, let’s not pin the blame for her lack of academic brilliance on the “royals”. (And it was ONLY thirty years ago – no 300 years ago.)

      • Juliette says:

        @ Mel,

        We are all creatures of the time in which we were raised. Cultural expectations shift, sometimes rapidly. In 1980 it was NOT unusual for a young aristocratic woman to eschew University in favor of marriage and children. And in 1980 when a Prince came knocking, many people still believed in the fairy tale ending happily ever after, especially a 19 year old girl with an emotionally traumatic but sheltered childhood.

        Its not on the royals, nor on Diana personally that she had little formal education. I doubt ANYONE in her whole life pressed Diana to challenge herself academically – - not teachers, not parents, not friends, not in-laws — it was a sign of the times. Nice girls didn’t need degrees, but they needed a Prince Charming.

      • Zadie says:

        But didn’t Diana fail her O levels twice and then went on some course in Switzerland? It’s not like she choose not to go to University, she wan’t good enough to go.

      • LAK says:

        Diana was not academically bright. no 2 ways about it. She left school with an ‘O’ level in pet keeping. That was the best she could do. By contrast you have her school mate and contemporary Tilda Swinton.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        I had no idea she was school mates with Tilda! I wonder what Tilda was like as her younger self. As wacky as ever? (Tilda and Bowie are my 2 biggest androgynous crushes.)
        And what’s an “O” level? And what is pet keeping?

      • LAK says:

        FLORC: I adore Tilda and David Bowie. Even though she doesn’t play the androgynous thing, i throw Cate Blanchett in there too.

        ‘O’ Level = General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level examinations. These were statutory exams and certificate we took at 16yrs. They were phased out in the late 80s and we take GCSEs [General Certificate of Secondary Education] instead.

        ‘Pet Keeping’ is exactly as it says on the tin. Diana was apparently very good at looking after her school pets. It’s recommended that you leave statutory education with a certificate in at least 5 subjects which hopefully include maths and English. The mind boggles that Diana’s school offered ‘pet Keeping’ as an examinable subject for ‘O’ Level.

    • kristiner says:

      Exactly! They wanted an impressionable virgin of good linage. Diana fit the bill. It’s been noted in books EVERYWHERE that she didn’t have a higher education past high school and was below average academically.

      But she was anatomically “intact” so Charles was her first and the daughter of an earl and that’s all that mattered to them.

      Most of the Brits don’t have higher education. They get a fluff degree then do rich activities. Zara is an equestrian. Okay. AKA gets to stay rich and do a leisure activities as a “career” while Harry and William play military GI Joe’s.

      Even Kate is a glorified stay at home mom who didn’t work waiting for her ring.

      Queen Maxima, CP of Japan, CP Mary of Denmark, CP Letizia, etc. They had education and were smart and worked.

      • MsMirna says:

        Wow, an honest assessment. Thank you. I hate when people blow these “royals” up and try to make them larger than life. Basically living off the public dime …

    • Amanda_M87 says:

      Yeah, she got married and had babies really young so not much chance for a post secondary education.

    • Maureen says:

      @Red

      She was 19 when she became engaged. I’m so glad to see that someone remembers this. I don’t think many people remember it or even realize it in the first place. I’ve never been a Diana fan, but I’ve always felt sympathy for her.

  3. Elisabeth says:

    I’d love to know what is the reason to talk bad about a woman that has been dead for many years, especially now that her sons and in the spotlight and enjoying life. Seems a little shitty IMO

    • LadySlippers says:

      I think they are taking the quotes out of context to make it more shocking and sell more papers. Marie-Christine isn’t saying anything earth shattering here — it’s just been framed to look like she did.

    • truthSF says:

      @Elisabeth:

      Exactly!!!!!

    • Mallory says:

      Prolly a case of sour grapes.

    • Meredith says:

      My parents are from England, so I know more stuff than usual about the Royal Family. Princess Michael of Kent is not the Queen’s cousin. Her husband Prince Michael of Kent is the Queen’s cousin. I believe Princess Michael married into the royal family and it took decades for her to shake the outsider label.

    • FLORC says:

      Elisabeth. LS is right. This seems to be taken out of context to stir up a one sided conversation.
      And you’ve taken the bait.

  4. Sixer says:

    I thought Princess Pushy had been relegated to begging in the streets since they started making her pay KP rent! Did they pay her for the interview?!

    • Zadie says:

      Why do the call her Princess Pushy?
      And, she is by far the most beautiful women of the BRF I have ever seen. Much more beautiful than Kate, and especially Diana.

  5. MrsBPitt says:

    I didn’t really think that she was slamming Diana. She just inferred that Diana wasn’t prepared for the circus that her fame and popularity brought. Diana was only 19, and was not raised in the spotlight. I don’t know many that could handle that thrust into the limelight with ease. Also, she was right, Charles and Camilla ARE boring. The public only wants to hear about Will, Kate, baby George and hunky Harry!

  6. Gracie says:

    I’m sorry but I can’t get over the fact that her name is Michael. I don’t know (or care) much about British royals, but I think it’s low to speak ill of the dead, personally.

    • susan gibbs says:

      She is called Princess Michael, because she uses her husband’s name…Anglophiles, help me out.

      • Mallory says:

        Yeah, one takes the name of the husband with social titles in the feminine form.

      • The.princess.leia says:

        She is married to Prince Michael. Her name is actually Marie Christine and she is a Baroness. But she is allowed to use her husband’s name and title complimentary to his. Much like Duchess Biscuits could use Princess William.

      • Gracie says:

        Oh, I see. That’s a little odd. I could see taking a last name, but a first name?

      • FLORC says:

        Gracie
        We don’t call Prince William Prince (insert long, multiple worded last name here). We calll him Prince William (first name). Just think of it like that. And when a bride comes along they get the female version of the title, but the 1st name acts like the last.

      • Lucrezia says:

        Given that they’re not supposed to be called Princess in their own name (because they’re not of the blood), it actually makes sense to use the guy’s first name.

        All the Princes (Charles, Edward, Andrew, Michael, WIlliam and Harry) would have Windsor as a surname if they bothered to use one. So which wife would Princess Windsor be? Calling them Princess Charles or Princess Michael tells you which woman you’re talking about.

      • LadySlippers says:

        It’s actually an English tradition that has been adopted all over the world. When a woman marries she assumes the feminine version of the man’s title. A ‘normal’ example, Mr John Smith and Miss Jane Brown marry and she becomes Mrs John Smith (née Miss Jane Brown). So when Baroness Marie-Christine married Prince Michael of Kent she assumed the feminine version of his title. Just like Sophie became The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex and so on. True for both Royal and non-Royal women — this is a fairly common practice in the English speaking world.

    • BW says:

      Her name is not Michael. Her title is Princess Michael because her husband is Prince Michael. She’s not a princess in her own right, so she can’t be called Princess Marie Christine.

      Similarly, Duchess Kate is Princess William, but nobody wants to call her that. Diana was also going to be called Princess Charles, but the public called her Princess Diana. That was not her title. Her title was Diana, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc. etc., because she wasn’t born a princess.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Before her divorce Diana was HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, and so one. It was only after her divorce she became Diana, Princess of Wales.

        While married a woman’s title is the exactly the same but the feminine version of her husband’s title. Unless his title is earned and not hereditary: Dr & Mrs John Smith.

      • bluesmurfette says:

        Di was officially Princess Diana while she was married. Her title was downgraded to Diana, Princess of Wales after the divorce.

        All women can be called by their husband’s names, even here in the USA. I’ve heard some older women call themselves Mrs. John Doe (or whatever).

        edit: ladyslippers, you beat me to it.

      • LAK says:

        Diana was never officially PRINCESS Diana. She was The Princess of Wales during the marriage and after her divorce Diana, Princess of wales. Prior to marriage she was Lady Diana.

        There is a difference between all those titles and they all denote a woman’s status relative to a title.

        Title + First name = daughter of title eg Lady Diana or Princess Anne or Princess Beatrice

        Title in full and or husband’s name = wife of title eg The Princess of Wales or The Duchess of Cambridge or Princess Michael

        First Name + Coma + title = divorced woman eg Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York

        Dowager + Title = Widow of title eg Dowager Duchess of Devonshire

        The media decided to call her Princess Diana, but that was wrong because her father wasn’t a Prince or by the British system, the son or grandson of a monarch.

    • SonjaMarmeladova says:

      Was she the one who said that she’s the most royal person in the family after Phillip? And that breeding matters when it comes to people, or something like that?

      • Zadie says:

        Most royal how?

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Sonja: Yes she is the one who said that. And yes, it’s all about bloodlines.

        @Zadie: She said it because she is related to almost every Royal *and* Imperial House in Europe. Remember Imperial trumps Royal — hence the snobbery.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        No, she didn’t say she was the most Royal after Philip. What actually happened occurred during a very tense intervention between the queen, Philip, Charles and Diana. When they realized that they would not be able to convince Diana to abandon the idea of a divorcen sparks began to fly. In a bluster Philip told Diana that she would most definitely lose her title if she insisted on the divorce. Without batting an eyelash Diana snap back “My title is older than yours”
        Oh to have been a fly on that wall.

      • LadySlippers says:

        The quote about Marie-Christine being ‘the most Royal’ after Philip in the BRF predates the Wales’ divorce and Diana’s comment to Philip.

        It’s another quote of Marie-Christine’s that I think has been misconstrued (I think but don’t quote me) in order to create her not-so-nice persona.

    • Kelly says:

      Ah, patriarchy at its finest.
      It’s like being called Mrs. John Smith if you were married to a John Smith.
      Like the husband’s surname which replaces your father’s surname, the title + hubby’s first name immediately brands you as someone’s possession.
      Long live the dick.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I said almost the same thing up thread! Lol

      • LAK says:

        And this is why i object to father walking bride down the aisle. It’s not sweet, it’s visible continuation of patriarchal societal dictum that father owns the bride like a possession.

        What is additionally annoying is that in some ceremonies, usually if a priest is involved, the priest asks,’who gives this woman away?’ Father affirms that he is doing so.

        Then bride’s hand is given to groom in a symbolic gesture that bride’s ownership is transferring from bride’s father to groom.

        Urgh!!!

      • LadySlippers says:

        Women and children (as well as slaves) took the man’s last name as a symbol of his ownership over them.

        This is why I struggled a lot with taking my ex’s last name. It was only after the US Navy had a fit while my ex was increasing his security clearances did I cave in.
        :-(

      • Kelly says:

        I personally hate the fact that children are given their father’s surname by default. All around the world, still today!

        I love how Aaron Johnson and Sam Taylor-Wood both took the surname Taylor-Johnson after their wedding (even if I think everything else about their relationship is weird)

  7. Cora says:

    I find William and Kate just as boring as the “older royals”, so I don’t see much of a gain there.

  8. Mallory says:

    Speaking ill of the dead especially over such a petty thing, seems tacky and spiteful to say the least especially after all these years. But God forbid to speak ill of the royals. What would we do without Harry’s antics…

  9. paola says:

    Well.. not being educated doesn’t mean that you’re not well mannered, intelligent, decent, loving, caring, full of life and responsive to needy people around the world. I have a degree and a PhD, that doesn’t make me better than people without school training. I met many ignorant people at university, very much up their own arse, very rude and unapologetic while i met some really great people, very intelligent and unbelievably curious about life and they didn’t even finish high school.
    Education is important to raise the profile of some countries, is important for people to know what’s behind the corner but that doesn’t make you better than people who didn’t have the chance to be educated. Education and intelligence are two very different things.
    This woman should stop bitching behind somebody whos’ died more than a decade ago only to be relevant. and while we all say Princess Michael who? We all know who Diana was, maybe not a perfect human being but very very humble and generous.
    And while she very much likes prince William, at this point i’m not sure he likes her back.

    • FLORC says:

      Paola
      You’ve missed the point. Those in the RF and those married in to the RF had great educations for that time. And they never stopped learning.
      The article seems wildly fudged to stir the pot and sell copies.

      And dead people will forever be talked about. What context was being spoken of here is not known, but many are taking it and flying off te handle.

      And Diana was generous, but in no way humble. She knew her status and loved to flaunt it. Maybe on visits she was humble, but that was in a controlled environment and not her day to day.
      William seems to dislike a lot of people anyways. When Harry dislikes them i’ll think there’s something there more than petty behavior and grudges.

      So, not everything you read is word for word accurate and in the right context. It can often be non-fiction carefully edited to sound like fiction to provoke emotions.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      Regardless of the point of the post and this thread, you made a lovely point your own!

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      I agree. I completely understand that the quotes were taken out of context and manipulated to look like a dig at Diana. However, there would be no quotes to mangle if this woman would simply keep her mouth shut. I am from a strict, extremely poised and well mannered southern family and I learned from my great grandmother that if you do not have anything nice to say do not say anything at all. Especially if there is the slightest chance that what you say will be misrepresented and given that the topic was the late Diana it is a pretty safe bet to assume that the media will go ape shit over the story. But then again when you have a product to push good breeding and discretion fly out of the window. Yes, everything Michael said was true and I do not believe it was even remotely exaggerated but she carefully chose what she wanted to expand upon. And is it coincidence that she mentioned The two women, Diana and Sarah, who married into the royal family and both had mothers who abandoned them for a New relationship. That is tacky. And if it is all about being honest then she could have dropped a tidbit or two about what a horrible mother Elizabeth was to Charles. Feel free to clutch A pearl or two.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Snark, The problem is the British press adore twisting to words of the Royals, especially certain Royals. At some point you have to make peace with the fact that someone will ‘see’ something that’s not there. All Royals deal with it. The press does it to sell papers and generate sales — that’s not Marie-Christine’s fault.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lady,
        That is precisely my point. Someone like Princess Michael has absolutely no excuse because she is not only used to being in the public spotlight and understands how the media game is played but she is supposed to be a product of good breeding, whatever that truly means. She is an adult and a member of the royal family and like I said above if you know there is even a chance that your words will be twisted then you politely steer clear of any ambiguous statements. And given the fact that the subject of part of the conversation is deceased it is even more ridiculous that Michael did not simply make a polite, sweetly bland statement and leave it at that. If the journalist that gave the interview repeatedly tried to steer her in the direction of conversation about Diana then she should have been savvy enough to sidestep that. Then there are simply no statements to blow out of proportion. And why the hell mentioned Sarah at all? The connection is clear and in my opinion, odious. I just can’t bring myself to make excuses for a supposedly intelligent adult who quite understands how things play out in the press. And her saccharine comments about William and Kate prove that she understands and responds to which way the wind is blowing. Ugh.

  10. Simply Red says:

    Many of what the Baroness stated were taking out of context.

    Whatever sells

  11. eliza says:

    Princess Michael has always been kind of a witch. Who cares at this point about Diana’s attitude, education, affairs or place in the royal family? The woman is dead. People, including Princess Michael , should let her rest in peace. It is much more dignified to utter nothing than to talk about people no longer around to defend themselves.

    • Meredith says:

      +1. She does this to sell her books. Can’t blame her now that so many minor royals are getting kicked off the public roll and having to pay for things themselves. Life is tough when you run out of other people’s money!

  12. HK9 says:

    I guess this interview is Princess Michael of Kent’s use of her PhD in what exactly??? Bitch please, hard for me to respect you when your taking shots (no matter how misquoted) at a dead woman. (It’s -25 in Toronto so I’m grumpy and I have no patience for this sh~)

    • Suze says:

      She’s not taking shots and she’s not misquoted.

      Diana didn’t have a formal education. She didn’t have her mother in her as a consistent presence in her life after the age of six. Those are facts, not shots. And those comments are not used as “shots” in the actual article. She’s trying to explain why Diana experienced some difficulties in her life adjusting to royal life and fame.

  13. We Miss You Enclave_24 says:

    Cancer’s always have “mommy” issues and the females are very adept at emotional manipulation. The men are good at it too but the females always persevere.

  14. QQ says:

    Tell you what sis, I bet she had enough education to not be shading dead people in print Tho! *side eyed as fuck*

  15. epiphany says:

    She didn’t say anything horrible, and certainly nothing that wasn’t true. Diana had great emotional intelligence, but her formal education was sorely neglected, due partly to her lack of interest in school – which she admitted to several times – and lack of parental involvement.
    Princess Michael takes a beating from the royal family on a regular basis – I doubt she would pile on where criticism of Diana was concerned. If anyone understands being a rank outsider in “The Firm”, it’s PM.

  16. OriginallyBlue says:

    Do these people have nothing else to talk about? The poor woman has been dead for years and they still keep bringing her up. Even if the headline is sensationalized it still seems rather tacky to be picking at a dead woman.

    • LAK says:

      The Diana quote was a small line in a long interview she gave for a book she’s written about royalty. The headlines have simply picked out the Diana quotes because that’s still a seller.

  17. Lucky Charm says:

    Of course she (Diana) didn’t have much of an education – she was engaged to PoW at 19, and married just barely after turning 20. Let the dead rest in peace, sheesh.

    • Bread and Circuses says:

      Exactly. Being an active, high-profile royal is a full-time job, so in a sense, she went from (the English equivalent of) high school straight into the workforce.

    • Penny says:

      That’s old enough to have 2 years of university under your belt. Diana just didn’t do well enough at school to get into any university.

      • Dee says:

        Yet Diana gave her first speech in Welsh. She was a real trooper and worked hard. Yet “well educated” Kate can barely read three sentences in English off a paper and holidays more than she works.

  18. LAK says:

    I don’t understand why people think she’s shading Diana or talking ill of her.

    I guess it’s Princess Pushy who has a negative press image so everything she says must always be seen as shading.

    Did Diana handle her fame well? Not at first. Do young uneducated pop starts handle their fame well? let’s ask all those disney starlets and every child star.

    By bringing up Diana’s lack of education, she’s postulating that Diana didn’t have the tools to deal with her fame which was compounded by lack of parental guide.

    Did Diana [and Sarah] essentially raise themselves because they were abandoned by their mothers? YES!!!

    Is she saying Diana was a witch? No.

    Lastly, of course people aren’t interested in old people. Sad, but true. Aren’t we always railing against the cult of youth?

    Where is the shade?

    • LadySlippers says:

      Well said LAK.

      Florc and I have been trying to say the same things but I think too many just read the headlines OR don’t know that Marie-Christine is kinda used as the BRF’s whipping dog (much like both Diana and Sarah have been).

      Marie-Christine is not a witch but a very outspoken intelligent woman. Although in many circles that’s all that is needed for a ‘witch’ label to be tacked onto a woman.

      • FLORC says:

        Yup, Yup to you Suze, and LAK throughout this thread.

        The older generation had a tighter grip on the release of information to the public. As it has leaked out over decades they were very interesting, but also know how to keep a secret until it’s not as volatile.
        That’s why the younger generation is more interesting imo. They think they’re untouchable in every sense. To see their actions and possible implosions/explosions is also interesting.

        And people love to hate so they will read the article and without fact checking proceed to rip into the quoted parties apart.*cough*Mantel*cough*.

    • Suze says:

      Yeah, this, spot on.

    • Suze says:

      Well, at least she didn’t paint an “unflattering” picture of Duchess Kate!

  19. Suze says:

    It’s amazing the charisma of Diana. Seventeen years dead, and even a perceived slight in a newspaper article can get the tabloids rolling and the comments on blogs piling up.

    Princess Pushy is a pain in the ass, and no doubt full of herself, but her interview was actually bland as oatmeal. She was trying to explain Diana, not diss her. She was trying to explain the appeal of the royal family, and not insult the elder royals.

    • LAK says:

      Completely O/T, but i saw a recent pic of her daughter Gabrielle……Windsor genes have struck there too. Shame as she was so, so pretty.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Freddie was strange looking from puberty on….

      • Suze says:

        Oh, say it isn’t so. Gabriella was so pretty and had such style. Well, maybe she will retain the style, at least.

      • bluhare says:

        Really, LAK? I’ll have to go google her. Her brother was nice looking too; didn’t he model for Burberry? Now he looks ill. And I’m not saying that facetiously. His skintone seems very yellow to me.

        Michael has held up well though. Wonder if there are any photos of him without the beard. But the main thing that I got from this story is that Marie Christine should NOT do cat eyes. Her eyes are wide set enough already; extending her makeup out makes them look like they’re running off the side of her face.

  20. Montréalise says:

    I don’t think that Princess Michael is putting down Diana – she speaks of her with great affection, but points out that because of her background, she was not equipped, either emotionally or intellectually, to cope with being thrust into the limelight. At the age of 6, Diana was the subject of a bitter and nasty custody suit between her parents, which her father won, and so she saw very little of her mother after that. She was raised by a succession of nannies before being sent off to boarding school, which she left at the age of 16 after failing her O-levels twice. All Princess Michael is saying is that if she had had a strong and loving bond with her mother, and had a better education, she would have had an easier time dealing with all the challenges she faced.

  21. StaCat1 says:

    I don’t see the “slamming” referred to. I think the papers are making MUCH ado about nothing- as usual.
    She said SEVERAL times how she was fond of her and she had a great amount of goodness in her. She noted her upbringing – though priviliged- wasn’t easy given her mother’s absence and family situation.
    And truth be told, Diana wasn’t in fact very educated. She herself, commented MANY times, that academics were not her strong suit.

    Don’t get the fuss here.

  22. Alina says:

    Diana was not very bright… academically… no secret. Marie-Christine was friends with her and she is right about Di and Fergie. Both were let down by their families (especially mothers) .

    I really like Princess Michael. She´s elegant, hardworking, honest, funny… and SUPER POSH! I like her interviews. It´s always a good laugh!

    “It’s not often that beautiful girls are also very funny. I mean, ugly girls have to be funny and we are just in howls of laughter the whole time.”

    “I have never tried Spanx because I have fat legs. It seems to me that if you wear Spanx, the fat has to bulge out somewhere”

    “Unfortunately, 35 years ago it was unacceptable for a royal princess to be ‘in trade’. ‘So I called Mummy and said, “What shall I do?” and she said, “Well, you studied history – why don’t you think about writing history books?” So that’s how it started.’”

    “We’ve cut back dramatically. I mean, we never go out to dinner unless we go to somebody’s house.”

    “I was taught, and I taught my children, if they ever came back from school saying ‘Oh, so and so’s father’s got a helicopter, it’s not fair’, I’d say, ‘Fair? Whoever said life had to be fair? Is it fair that you live in Kensington Palace? That you’ve each got a pony? There are an awful lot of kids without a pony, you know’.”

    “There is a law against discrimination in England. But there is a different law for the royal family.”

  23. Maybe says:

    Hmmm….This comment will sell a few extra books for her, so she said it. Promoting a book = create interest by slinging some mud. Diana is an easy target.

    I’m not sure that having an education would prepare anyone for what Diana went through. I have an MA, and am confident that I would have totally cracked under the massive pressure.

    Was she possibly referring to a strict “royal” education that only a royal mother, or mother figure, could provide?

  24. Tania says:

    I’m not convinced she was shading Diana. That said, her makeup is exquisite. Kudos to whomever is responsible for it.

  25. Caroline says:

    Poor Diana.

  26. Maureen says:

    Another story I’m late to, but I don’t think this woman (I never heard of her before!) said anything horrible. Maybe society-at-large has become conditioned to think that any type of criticism is automatically mean and hateful. But that comes with being inundated with cries of “hate speech” and “offensive” over every little thing. We stop being able to tell what hateful really is and what offensive really means. I think Princess Michael simply said some very interesting insider bits without being cruel and gossipy. She clearly stated that she loved Diana and felt close to her. I sense sympathy for Diana from her comments, not nastiness. Let’s face it, people are fascinated by Diana and the royal family. Millions of people the world over gobble up every bit of news on this group of people who, as it happens, are wildly UN-interesting. No one should act all high and mighty over a few nuggets of insider opinion about a family that the public and press have pursued for decades.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Maureen, Most of what Marie-Christine (Princess Michael) was said about Diana and Sarah are repeats. There’s nothing new here at all. It’s really a very bland interview. Very bland.

  27. raincoaster says:

    Oh, Princess Michael isn’t boring at ALL! The rumour is she and her prince first hooked up when she was still married to someone else. She once took a tour of, I think it was Oxford, saw a beautiful rug on display that had been loaned by her husband’s family, and ordered it packed up and sent to her place. The other royals LOVE to make fun of her for her social climbing ways. Once someone said something about inviting PMK as she is known to some event and the Queen said, “Oh, she’s far too grand for the likes of us.”

    • raincoaster says:

      Oh, and she was caught coming out of her paramour’s apartment wearing a tacky wig. And…let’s see, there’s more but I can’t remember off the top of my head. Oh yes, something about plagiarizing substantial portions of her book.