Princess Diana ‘Shamed’ by Royal Advisors

Princess Diana once told her trusted designer, Jacques Azagury about her skirts: “Let’s go shorter.”

But Knewz.com can reveal he pushed back – telling her: “There’s not much dress at the top, there’s not much dress at the bottom. You’ll end up with nothing in between.”

His advice was part of the relentless slut-shaming the tragic princess had to endure in the final years of her life.

While Azagury wasn’t on Buckingham Palace’s payroll, his advice echoed that of royal flunkies who hated Diana’s carefree attitude and sexy dress sense she flaunted in the wake of her brutal divorce from the then-Prince Charles.

A Palace insider told us: “Diana wanted to go shorter and shorter with her skirts and lower and lower with her tops.

“But advice came down from on high that if she wanted to keep her grace-and-favor apartment and cash, she would stay demure.

“She was basically slut-shamed until she went into her grave and still under The Firm’s control.”

In the final years of her life, Princess Diana – then in her mid-30s – underwent a striking transformation in the public eye.

Following her 1992 separation and eventual 1996 divorce from then-Prince Charles, Diana, killed aged 36 in 1997 in a Paris car smash, began stepping out in what would become known as the “Famous Five” dresses – a series of daring, boundary-pushing gowns designed by Azagury.

However, according to 69-year-old designer Azagury, not everyone supported Diana’s newfound fashion freedom.

He has backed up our source’s claim. by revealing royal advisors and insiders tried to rein in her style, fearing it would damage the monarchy’s image.

Azagury, speaking on A Right Royal Podcast, said Diana frequently wanted to go further with her wardrobe choices.

He said: “She wanted to go super short on the skirts. Paul Burrell, her butler, and myself would say, ‘That’s as short as you can go.’”

According to sources close to the late Princess of Wales, her post-divorce wardrobe was a deliberate form of self-expression.

But while Diana was shedding royal constraints publicly, those within the palace were said to be uncomfortable with the shift.

One insider from her styling circle, who asked not to be named, said: “There was real tension. Every time she wanted to show a bit more leg or cleavage, there was pushback. It wasn’t about taste – it was about control.”

The “Famous Five” – the red Venice dress, black Bashir dress, blue Swan Lake gown, red Washington dress and black 36th birthday dress – were worn between 1995 and the summer of 1997.

Each dress represented a moment of fashion liberation, but also stirred internal royal alarm.

The black birthday gown, worn on 1 July 1997, would be Di’s last appearance on a red carpet.

Azagury recalled the behind-the-scenes pressure, saying: “She’d ask for shorter, and we’d try to find a compromise. There was a feeling from some in her circle that she was going too far – that it was unbecoming.”

The designer also described Diana as radiant in those years, noting her meticulous attention to detail.

“She took a long time making sure everything was just right,” he said. “Choosing the right shoes and jewelry – it was all part of the story.”

Azagury added: “After the breakup of the marriage, she rediscovered herself and she turned into this unbelievably stunning woman. She had everything – the most amazing legs, that great hair, those blue eyes.”

Another former associate involved in royal wardrobe decisions said: “Diana was seen as a threat to the institution. Not because of scandal, but because of her power. Those dresses weren’t just fashion. They were a statement.”

The push to tone down Diana did not always succeed.

In several key instances – such as the blue Swan Lake gown worn in June 1997 – she wore exactly what she wanted.

But, Azagury claimed, “she could have gone further… if they’d let her.”

Butler Burrell, 66, wrote in his memoir Diana was often caught between expressing herself and protecting her public role.

“She knew how to command attention, but also when to pull back,” he wrote.