Diana worked as a part-time kindergarten teacher in London. At the time, she was the first royal to have a paying job before getting engaged.
25 ways Princess Diana broke protocol as a Royal - A THREAD
Diana worked as a part-time kindergarten teacher in London. At the time, she was the first royal to have a paying job before getting engaged.
Although royal engagement rings are usually custom made, the 19-year-old bride selected hers from the Garrard jewelry collection catalog. Because Diana's ring was "accessible" to the public at the time, this caused a stir.
In 1981, Princess Diana made history when she famously refused to say that she would "obey" Prince Charles during their wedding vows. She also called Charles the wrong name!
Kate removed the line in her vows that said she would "obey" Prince William.
Meghan also chose to omit "obey" from her vows. She and Prince Harry took it a step further by using casual monikers during their service, which was a change in royal tradition.
It was tradition for royals to have home births, but Diana gave birth to Prince William in the Lindo Wing of St. Mary's Hospital in 1982 —and Prince Harry in the same hospital in 1984.
So far, Kate has had all three of her children in the Lindo Wing of St. Mary's Hospital.
The 20-year-old took a completely modern view of child-rearing from the very beginning. She chose her sons' first names herself (Charles wanted Arthur for their firstborn and Albert for the second) and breastfed them as infants.
When she married Prince Charles, Diana gave up working as a nursery school teacher in favor of her royal obligations. But while she maintained her official duties, Diana put parenting before her other commitments.
Usually, royals are taught at home and by a governess inside the palace. But at his mother's insistence, William became the first heir to the throne to attend public school — at Jane Mynor's nursery school near Kensington Palace.
No longer "Shy Di"! In 1994, while a documentary about Prince Charles' infidelity was airing, Princess Diana donned a clingy, ruched mini dress for a Serpentine Gallery benefit.
Typically, royals don't wear black in public, unless they are attending a funeral or are in mourning. However, Diana wore black repeatedly to events.
But don't worry, she wasn't reckless. Princess Diana's handbag designer Anya Hindmarch called her purses "cleavage bags," because the Princess used them to cover up her chest while getting out of the car.
It's tradition for royals to wear gloves to the opera and formal events, such as banquets. Queen Elizabeth almost always wears them, both for fashion reasons and as a way to avoid germs.
It's common for the women in the royal family to wear neutral nail polish or no polish at all, per Queen Elizabeth's preference. But Princess Diana wasn't afraid to go bold with her polish choices.
Princess Diana wore blue eyeliner for years. Her makeup artist later revealed that for official appearances Diana opted for neutral colors that were "appropriate for the occasion," since royals are supposed to keep their appearances subtle.
Unless you're a man, royal family members aren't supposed to wear pants to formal occasions. Clearly Princess Diana didn't get the memo here (but we love that she rocked trousers!).
Diana appeared on the cover of Vogue three times before her death, and she didn't shy away from tough questions.
In the BBC interview, she addressed Prince Charles's longtime relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles: "There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded."
More from Government
Which metric is a better predictor of the severity of the fall surge in US states?
1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020
Can you guess which plot is which?
The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.
However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).
Infections % from https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.
This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.
Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.
But political lean.
One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.
This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.
We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).
https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta
To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.
This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!
1) Margin of Democrat victory in Nov 2020 election
or
2) % infected through Sep 1, 2020
Can you guess which plot is which?
The left plot is based on the % infected through Sep 1, 2020. You can see that there is very little correlation with the % infected since Sep 1.
However, there is a *strong* correlation when using the margin of Biden's victory (right).
Infections % from https://t.co/WcXlfxv3Ah.
This is the strongest single variable I've seen in being able to explain the severity of this most recent wave in each state.
Not past infections / existing immunity, population density, racial makeup, latitude / weather / humidity, etc.
But political lean.
One can argue that states that lean Democrat are more likely to implement restrictions/mandates.
This is valid, so we test this by using the Government Stringency Index made by @UniofOxford.
We also see a correlation, but it's weaker (R^2=0.36 vs 0.50).
https://t.co/BxBBKwW6ta
To avoid look-ahead bias/confounding variables, here is the same analysis but using 2016 margin of victory as the predictor. Similar results.
This basically says that 2016 election results is a better predictor of the severity of the fall wave than intervention levels in 2020!
You May Also Like
Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
Funny there are those who think these migrant caravans were a FANTASTIC idea that's going to take the immigration issue away from you.
— Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) November 26, 2018
Like several weeks watching a rampaging horde storm the fences & throw rocks at our border patrol agents & getting gassed = great optics!
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
