The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 08-04-2008, 07:20 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
Actually, I was referring to statements made here, repeatedly.
But by whom?
Quote:
And she was still William and Harry's REAL mother.
I had no idea their maternal parentage was also in doubt!
__________________

__________________
  #242  
Old 08-04-2008, 10:35 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
They were outrageous demands, stirred up by the media trying to shift the blame. It is inconceivable that anyone would expect a grieving family to issue a statement or act in a certain way, I wonder how many would have thought 'put the public' first in the same situation?

The Royal Family put the boys first, as they should. They actually knew Diana as a person not just a 'celeb'. It must have been a tremendous shock to the entire family and the last people they should have to consider were the fickle public!
It is not at all inconceivable. The RF has staff in place to deal with these matters. It is not as if the Queen herself was expected to hand write a grief filled statement, tears blurring the ink, on how devastated they all were. As far as "putting the public" first, the Queen is still the queen, regardless of the impression that she can be "off duty". BTW, who is the UK's monarch when Elizabeth II is "off duty"?

Of course she is a loving grandmother who would want to give comfort to William and Harry during that time but, of all people, the Queen understands duty and at that time large numbers of her subjects were looking to her for comfort as well. As a monarch, she really does not get to chose between family and duty. It is her job as a result of her birth that requires her to balance the two. I don't mean to sound harsh, but there it is. I think the RF vastly underestimated the public's reaction and, in doing nothing, fueled the hysteria that followed.
__________________

__________________
  #243  
Old 08-04-2008, 10:47 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Why did the public need comforting, they didn´t know Diana, they saw her photographs, saw her passing in the street if they were lucky. This is surrogate grief. The Queen is always the Queen but she can surely have a private holiday with her family occasionally.
I don´t think that the Queen behaved in an appropriate manner, I think she gave in to the bullying far too easily but who am I to question what the Queen does. She did what she thought was right and that is good enough for me.
__________________
  #244  
Old 08-04-2008, 11:01 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
It is not at all inconceivable. The RF has staff in place to deal with these matters. It is not as if the Queen herself was expected to hand write a grief filled statement, tears blurring the ink, on how devastated they all were. As far as "putting the public" first, the Queen is still the queen, regardless of the impression that she can be "off duty". BTW, who is the UK's monarch when Elizabeth II is "off duty"?
There may be staff, but they need to take instruction before making a statement on HM or Charles' behalf. I ask again would anyone on here, public figure or not, have thought to make a statement. I cannot imagine HM's shock when they finally watched a news programme, to see tourists and subjects alike weeping for a woman they didn't actually know! I suppose that is a major difference between the rest of the world and the British, we recognise that HM is entitled to private time and now recognise that they were entitled to grieve privately.
Quote:
SNIPPED and at that time large numbers of her subjects were looking to her for comfort as well. As a monarch, she really does not get to chose between family and duty. It is her job as a result of her birth that requires her to balance the two. I don't mean to sound harsh, but there it is. I think the RF vastly underestimated the public's reaction and, in doing nothing, fueled the hysteria that followed.
Now that I find 'strange' to say the least, what did they want, a cuddle, a pat on the shoulder, how about a royal shoulder to cry on? How did they think HM could comfort them when they were blaming the cold heartless bast***ds for Diana's death. If HM had continued on, as monarch, as though nothing had happened, there would have been complaints about that.

Frankly I don't feel it was a case of underestimated the reaction or the hysteria, I believe by the time the heard from anyone about the recreational grieving, they were 'gobsmacked'. Given that troops were apparently deployed to protect HM and rest of the royals upon their return to London, who in their right mind wouldn't want to protect their grandchildren from such hysteria?
__________________
  #245  
Old 08-04-2008, 11:04 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
Why did the public need comforting, they didn´t know Diana, they saw her photographs, saw her passing in the street if they were lucky. This is surrogate grief. The Queen is always the Queen but she can surely have a private holiday with her family occasionally.
I don´t think that the Queen behaved in an appropriate manner, I think she gave in to the bullying far too easily but who am I to question what the Queen does. She did what she thought was right and that is good enough for me.
Who is to judge what grief is real and what is "surrogate"? Where is it written that you need to know someone intimately to grieve them? The footage of the mountains of flowers that were left at the palace gates and the throngs of distraught people is pretty convincing to me that this was not your average day in London. The Queen certainly is entitled to her summer holidays, but circumstances do not always allow one to continue one's hikes and BBQs when there is a crisis brewing. As far as giving in to the bullying, the Queen is a public figure and it goes with the territory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
There may be staff, but they need to take instruction before making a statement on HM or Charles' behalf. I ask again would anyone on here, public figure or not, have thought to make a statement. I cannot imagine HM's shock when they finally watched a news programme, to see tourists and subjects alike weeping for a woman they didn't actually know! I suppose that is a major difference between the rest of the world and the British, we recognise that HM is entitled to private time and now recognise that they were entitled to grieve privately
.

As a public figure, the first reaction in such a situation is to make a statement. Most of the people here cannot comprehend the necessity of dealing with matters in such a way, but the RF is very much used to it, I would imagine. Their entire lives are constantly on display. I cannot imagine the Queen not knowing what was going on in London. Certainly she has TV reception at Balmoral and she certainly had Robert F. in London on speed dial from the moment the crash was reported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
Now that I find 'strange' to say the least, what did they want, a cuddle, a pat on the shoulder, how about a royal shoulder to cry on? How did they think HM could comfort them when they were blaming the cold heartless bast***ds for Diana's death. If HM had continued on, as monarch, as though nothing had happened, there would have been complaints about that.
Why should being the monarch mean that she should have continued on as though nothing happened? The point I was trying to make is that the eventual hysteria peaked because the Queen's subjects were looking to her for support and she didn't give them any until it was too late and the pot boiled over into something ugly and incomprehensible. That doesn't mean that I agree with what happened, only that I can understand how it snowballed.
__________________
  #246  
Old 08-04-2008, 11:13 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
Who is to judge what grief is real and what is "surrogate"? Where is it written that you need to know someone intimately to grieve them? The footage of the mountains of flowers that were left at the palace gates and the throngs of distraught people is pretty convincing to me that this was not your average day in London. The Queen certainly is entitled to her summer holidays, but circumstances do not always allow one to continue one's hikes and BBQs when there is a crisis brewing. As far as giving in to the bullying, the Queen is a public figure and it goes with the territory.
And where is it written than anyone has the right to tell someone who actually knew the woman, had regular contact with her children, how to react or behave?

HM did give in to the bullies and the bullies have nothing to be proud of themselves for, they wanted to gawk at the family, judge whether ITO they were properly grieving. It was shameful and they were the ones that did not act appropriately, not HM!

Mourning Diana: A moment of madness?

The explosion of vileness that followed her death


__________________
  #247  
Old 08-04-2008, 11:34 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
And where is it written than anyone has the right to tell someone who actually knew the woman, had regular contact with her children, how to react or behave?
When it comes to a monarch, you cannot separate the Queen from the woman. If the the Queen's birthright was not so awesome in its scope then people would not have such a reverence for it. It was their Queen that the people were looking to, not the former mother-in-law, not the grandmother of the dead woman's children. Again, I don't agree with what went on, but I can easily understand how it happened and how it might have been prevented.
__________________
  #248  
Old 08-04-2008, 11:57 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
When it comes to a monarch, you cannot separate the Queen from the woman. If the the Queen's birthright was not so awesome in its scope then people would not have such a reverence for it. It was their Queen that the people were looking to, not the former mother-in-law, not the grandmother of the dead woman's children. Again, I don't agree with what went on, but I can easily understand how it happened and how it might have been prevented.
As I said, I can't begin to imagine HM's thoughts at that time, but asking her to separate the Grandmother from the Monarch, would be similar to asking the parent of a dying child, to forget they are parent, it would IMO be impossible. She couldn't win whatever she did, nor could Charles, if either had returned to London without the boys, it would have been 'cruel, cold, heartless... those poor abandoned boys, this is the family poor Diana escaped from'. If they had returned the very first day, with the boys, it would have been 'those poor little boys, you'd have thought they would have kept them in Scotland for a while, out of the glare'.

Nothing demonstrates this better - a couple of pages ago people were saying IF HM had ordered prayers to be said, mentioned Diana's name at the service it would have shown them that she 'cared', that she did the right thing. After I posted the link that shows that HM took the boys to Craithie for a memorial service, not one person has said - Oh that's all I needed to hear'.
--------------------------
Britons are feeding their own egos by indulging in "recreational grief" for murdered children and dead celebrities they have never met, claims a report.

BBC NEWS | UK | 'Mourning sickness is a religion'
__________________
  #249  
Old 08-04-2008, 12:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
People admired and respected the princess, yes, absolutely. 'Worship' is a good attempt to trivialize that fact. As for the 'real' royal family, well titles didn't matter in the end as far as the public was concerned, did it? And she was still William and Harry's REAL mother.
Some people did worship her. That's part of what made it so easy for the press to manipulate them into such ugly anger against the royal family - people were reacting emotionally, and a combination of deep emotion and deep shock can be potentially dangerous.

The thing that struck me at the time is that people wouldn't have been nearly as upset if it was the Queen herself who had died while she was at Balmoral. They would have accepted the official explanation about the flag not being half-masted over Buckingham Palace, and they wouldn't have expected Charles or anyone else to come rushing to London to mourn and grieve with them, they'd have understood that he had things to do in the meantime.

I'm not at all ruling out the possibility that some of the Men In Grey Suits thought it would be a good idea to ignore Diana's death and the consequences as a sort of snub and for the royal family to not have their routine upset by the death of a semi-detached daughter-in-law with her latest boyfriend in Paris - they also might have thought that if the Queen dropped everything and rushed back to London it would show that she danced to Diana's bidding and the press's demands. And the press was, early in the days after Diana's death, so keen to shift the blame for her death from themselves (and who better to shift it to than the royal family, who don't answer back) that I'm sure they'd have been able to spin an early return into something unfavourable for the Queen and Prince Charles.

But this was a very unusual situation; the Queen's reliance on preparation, training, and routine didn't serve her well in a situation that was pretty well unprecedented, and they were having to play it by ear. The press had recently started to get negative about Diana and her jet-set lifestyle, especially her relationship with the Fayeds, and I wouldn't be surprised if the huge emotional reaction, whipped up by the press, had caught them all off guard.
__________________
  #250  
Old 08-04-2008, 12:27 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
As I said, I can't begin to imagine HM's thoughts at that time, but asking her to separate the Grandmother from the Monarch, would be similar to asking the parent of a dying child, to forget they are parent, it would IMO be impossible. She couldn't win whatever she did, nor could Charles, if either had returned to London without the boys, it would have been 'cruel, cold, heartless... those poor abandoned boys, this is the family poor Diana escaped from'. If they had returned the very first day, with the boys, it would have been 'those poor little boys, you'd have thought they would have kept them in Scotland for a while, out of the glare'.
I wasn't suggesting a return to London. Merely that perhaps a couple of well worded statements or an audio comment from the Queen issued during the course of the week would have helped prevent what turned into a circus. The grieving (in whatever form) did reach a fever pitch by the time the RF responded and I think it could have much been avoided. The "recreational grieving" that took place spiraled out of control because the media were the only ones doing the communicating.
__________________
  #251  
Old 08-04-2008, 01:34 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm not at all ruling out the possibility that some of the Men In Grey Suits thought it would be a good idea to ignore Diana's death and the consequences as a sort of snub and for the royal family to not have their routine upset by the death of a semi-detached daughter-in-law with her latest boyfriend in Paris - they also might have thought that if the Queen dropped everything and rushed back to London it would show that she danced to Diana's bidding and the press's demands. And the press was, early in the days after Diana's death, so keen to shift the blame for her death from themselves (and who better to shift it to than the royal family, who don't answer back) that I'm sure they'd have been able to spin an early return into something unfavourable for the Queen and Prince Charles.
Absolutely......All to the attack. Also that shameful address by Diana´s brother who, we learned later, had refused to let her live at her family home after the separation.
__________________
  #252  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:22 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
I think the RF vastly underestimated the public's reaction and, in doing nothing, fueled the hysteria that followed.
Exactly! That sums it up perfectly.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #253  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:26 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
What would you have liked them to have done, though?
__________________
  #254  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:27 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,482
There is a certain danger in ruling, governing or reacting as a result of public opinion. In my view it is almost as bad as blackmail. It never works and the more one gives the more the others expect.
If this was an instance where cool heads could prevail and advice could be given, having the luxury of time to think, things would be different.
However, the tragic accident and the disbelief of the crowds that Diana was actually dead caused people to look for scapegoats and reasons to blame. Sadly the BRF was the closest they could go after and the press obliged.
__________________
  #255  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:40 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Ah, but people went after the RF because the press were the only ones talking. They had all the opportunity to spin blame away from themselves (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, so to speak) because BP was silent . That is how riots are started. Eventually, if there is only one voice, the crowd starts to listen to what that voice is saying regardless of the truth of the statements. The media obviously did not want the finger of blame pointed at the paparazzi, so they started smoke about the RF and, with the royals unwilling to pour water on the situation, the smoke turned into a raging inferno.
__________________
  #256  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:50 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,482
I can see your point but still wonder. The papparazzi involved in the accident were taken from the scene in a police van. The British press fed off the crowds and the crowds fed off the press. Most of the time the British press was looking for Diana, they were already advised where she'd be having lunch or which friend she was visiting.
I remember shortly after the accident, I was visiting London and a friend who was driving me to Heathrow and I got into a row about the whole mess. We ended up at Gatwick (no word of a lie) and I missed my flight. She was so intense against the Royal Family about poor Diana, she forgot where she was going.............People were so involved in this that most could not separate the fact that the RF did not kill Diana. A drunk limo driver did it and she had no seat belt on.
__________________
  #257  
Old 08-04-2008, 02:50 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
Ah, but people went after the RF because the press were the only ones talking. They had all the opportunity to spin blame away from themselves (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, so to speak) because BP was silent . That is how riots are started. Eventually, if there is only one voice, the crowd starts to listen to what that voice is saying regardless of the truth of the statements. The media obviously did not want the finger of blame pointed at the paparazzi, so they started smoke about the RF and, with the royals unwilling to pour water on the situation, the smoke turned into a raging inferno.
I can understand your way of thinking and indeed your explanation, but, how do you explain the posts on here, 11 years on that are still blaming the Royal Family?

The Mullany's were shot over a week ago and as they were newlyweds, their deaths have been covered extensively and yet, it was only this evening the parents released a statement. Does that mean because there were no public demonstrations of 'grief' that nobody cares, of course not. We have simply allowed this family time to absorb all that has happened and they in turn have released a statement at a time that was right for them. That to me is how it should have been with Diana, giving the family time to absorb the news and all it entailed.
__________________
  #258  
Old 08-04-2008, 03:04 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
Well, I certainly cannot speak for any other posters. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected, if not agreed with. However, IMHO, 11 years later the Queen is still the Queen and no one has tried to throw things at Charles in public so I can only assume that the tide of public criticism on this matter has receded.
__________________
  #259  
Old 08-04-2008, 03:54 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Speaking for myself, I have no wish to bash the RF. No one is all good or all bad. But here we are eleven years on, and there are still people who feel a need to undermine Diana's contributions and memory on a daily basis. If they dislike her so much, if she was so insignificant in their opinion, why give the subject that much time and energy? Their reasons are their own, but as long as it continues I suppose comments that put things in perspective are to be expected.
__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
  #260  
Old 08-04-2008, 04:10 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
For all people interested in Diana I recommend the reading of a book by someone who really knew her and worked with her on a daily basis.
"Shadows of a Princess" by P.D. Jephson, who was her private secretary. It is extremely interesting.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
balmoral, buckingham palace, diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, tabloid press, tony blair


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photos Of King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie earlier days... Julia King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie 241 03-09-2014 08:13 PM
Lady Jane Grey, Queen for 9 days (1537-1554) ysbel British Royal History 77 04-16-2011 11:25 AM
Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death wymanda Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1117 10-03-2007 11:18 AM
New books marking the tenth anniversary of Diana's death Hendrik-Jan77 Royal Library 82 10-03-2007 11:12 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]