Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps if PM Blair hadn't immediately dubbed her the "People's Princess" and focused a bit more on the pain surely felt by the boys, then we, the mourning public, would have might had a bit more compassion to the Royal Family in a time for private emotions.
..... .....What is important is the royal family learned a lot about Diana and her fans all around the world...and the royals changed for the better because of this week.
Not all of the 'mourning public' lost their compassion for the real people affected by Diana's death.
To this day, I and many other Brits, IMO, who did not join in the disgraceful clamourings, are ashamed of what other people did and said that week!
Yes I'm sure that many people realised that week, that bullying can achieve a lot and I am not sure that the changes wrought by such bullying can be seen by all, as a change for the better.

Royalty should be seen as royalty, not some sort of celebrity.
 
Not all of the 'mourning public' lost their compassion for the real people affected by Diana's death.
To this day, I and many other Brits, IMO, who did not join in the disgraceful clamourings, are ashamed of what other people did and said that week!
Yes I'm sure that many people realised that week, that bullying can achieve a lot and I am not sure that the changes wrought by such bullying can be seen by all, as a change for the better.

Royalty should be seen as royalty, not some sort of celebrity.

The Royal Household was partly to blame for the exaggerated celebrity stuff. As the Lord Chamberlain's office organized the funeral, it is they who must take responsibility for inviting a bunch of celebrities whose association with Diana can be at best described as acquaintance, and in some cases, hardly that. In so doing, the Royal Household fed sticks to the celebrity idea which was initiated by the press.
 
Sorry Royalty is celebrity, at least today, they serve very little other purpose. Cutting ribbons and opening supermarkets is not the stuff science and medcine is made of. As for the "bullying" press, I doubt that could have exhorted such a reaction. The reaction may have been strange, especially for the stiff upper lip crowd, but it was genuine. Ten years later, it seems people still care. I shall not argue why, just that it exists. For those who chose to dislike the Princess that is their problem.
 
I've read Christopher Hitchens' take on that week. He was not among the mourning nor was he the least bit impressed with the outpouring of sadness because he has Republican views. His views are valid just as anyone who wailed loudly and threw posies at the coffin.


If we were to really delve into the true persona of Diana, we wouldn't have to go too far to realize why the royals were hesitant with their affection towards Diana and we should not castigate their hesitance into not being consumed with overt and public sadness. She was the Princess for and of the people, no longer royal and met her death having a dirty weekend with an enemy playboy.

The RF learned to allow for a tiny bit more humanity and to ignore the low market tabloids, as per noted by William and Harry in the Lauer interview. I also think they have gone back to being a tad more boring and bit less focused on the glam side.....The way it used to be back in the good ol' "Dark Ages" pre-1980/81.
 
Last edited:
I was an only child, age 39, when I lost both of my parents within a couple of months of each other. I was devastated and numb for months afterwards. I had spent two years, as their 24/7 caregiver and here in the US, I was in that house 24/7 with no relief. I slept for 3 days straight after my last parent passed away.

I cannot even begin to imagine what I would have felt or how I would have reacted had I been the focus of public attention during that period of time. I found it extremely challenging to even go to the grocery store the first couple of months, had I been exposed to photographers and reporters the second I stepped out my front door, I might well have starved to death and my pets too.

After my brief study of the Royal Family I have come to the conclusion that I HIGHLY prize my privacy.
 
Perhaps had the royals had allowed the coffin of Diana to lie in state as per Churchill, many in the massive throngs would have quietly passed by, paid silent respects and gone back to their homes. Not that Diana technically "deserved" such an honor but if she was worthy enough to lie in repose in a royal chapel then she could have been accorded such an honor (since she was draped in the Royal Standard...).

I often wonder if Diana had died a year or two later when there was much more internet access than in 1997, how the guestbook situation (as a online condolence book was set up for the Queen Mum) would have worked out and how the queus would have been less than 12 hours-plus in duration.
 
The Royal Household was partly to blame for the exaggerated celebrity stuff.
IMO, the 'celebrity' phase started when Diana started to do her own thing, while still married to Charles.
COUNTESS said:
As for the "bullying" press, I doubt that could have exhorted such a reaction. The reaction may have been strange, especially for the stiff upper lip crowd, but it was genuine
Even the media now calls it 'recreational grieving' or 'recreational mourners', (you get the flowers and I'll organise a coach).
BBC NEWS | UK | 'Mourning sickness is a religion'
ROGER SANDALL Spiked - Conspicuous Compassion
 
IMO, the 'celebrity' phase started when Diana started to do her own thing, while still married to Charles.

Right, but she was not even friends with over half those Hollywood yoohahs who were invited to the funeral. She was hardly an acquaintance of the likes of Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, for crying out loud, it was ridiculous. It was just a way for anyone with a marginal meeting with the princess at a random party to say "I knew her, so sad, look at me cry." :eek:
 
Right, but she was not even friends with over half those Hollywood yoohahs who were invited to the funeral. She was hardly an acquaintance of the likes of Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, for crying out loud, it was ridiculous. It was just a way for anyone with a marginal meeting with the princess at a random party to say "I knew her, so sad, look at me cry." :eek:
True, but I meant (and not in a derogatory way), that Diana was seen more as a celebrity than a royal at the time. :flowers: I think the RF and Spencers simply worked their way through her address book.
 
How sad that you would have to work from an address book. They did not know who her friends were or did she not have very many true friends. I don't mean that in a bad way, just that not to many people were very close to her.
 
How sad that you would have to work from an address book. They did not know who her friends were or did she not have very many true friends. I don't mean that in a bad way, just that not to many people were very close to her.

I don't think having only a few close friends is necessarily a bad or sad thing. Some people do, some people don't. I'm a bit of a loner and have never had a lot of close friends.

One of the difficulties that flowed from the decision to hold a state funeral was that lots of people had to be found to fill the church. Since Diana was no longer a member of the RF the guest list couldn't have been made up of the people who would usually be invited to a Royal funeral.

I think another problem was that Diana compartmentalised her life and had different friends in the different compartments, and members of one compartment did not necessarily know about the others, and I wouldn't be surprised if her family (i.e. the Spencers) and Charles didn't know many of the people whose company she enjoyed in the last year. They didn't have much time to make up the list and send out invitations, and Diana's address book is the sort of resource I would be looking to for assistance in the circumstances.
 
I've read Christopher Hitchens' take on that week. He was not among the mourning nor was he the least bit impressed with the outpouring of sadness because he has Republican views. His views are valid just as anyone who wailed loudly and threw posies at the coffin.


If we were to really delve into the true persona of Diana, we wouldn't have to go too far to realize why the royals were hesitant with their affection towards Diana and we should not castigate their hesitance into not being consumed with overt and public sadness. She was the Princess for and of the people, no longer royal and met her death having a dirty weekend with an enemy playboy.

The RF learned to allow for a tiny bit more humanity and to ignore the low market tabloids, as per noted by William and Harry in the Lauer interview. I also think they have gone back to being a tad more boring and bit less focused on the glam side.....The way it used to be back in the good ol' "Dark Ages" pre-1980/81.

What do you mean by a "dirty week-end, with an enemy playboy"? Very strange words.
 
What do you mean by a "dirty week-end, with an enemy playboy"? Very strange words.

"Dirty Weekend"-- I thought this was a common and well-known British term denoting a weekend away in the intimate company of someone a person was not married to.

dirty weekend - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dodi, while probably being a nice and otherwise gentle person, was the son of an enemy of the Establishment involved in scandal after scandal.
 
Last edited:
How can any of us judge how the people felt who accepted an invitation to the funeral? What matters, even if they were names in a very beautiful address book, is that they showed up and made the effort to come to pay tribute to her and show support to her sons. I would surmise from all I have read about Diana that she had very passionate and emotionally charged interactions with most people who crossed her red carpeted path...not all of them being perfect and well-defined. Diana was herself far from being perfect or well-defined, imo.

Who will forget Luciano Pavarotti staggering in tears to the nearest seat. What about Hasnat Khan in sunglasses in the Abbey and obviously in distress?
 
I think another problem was that Diana compartmentalised her life and had different friends in the different compartments, and members of one compartment did not necessarily know about the others, and I wouldn't be surprised if her family (i.e. the Spencers) and Charles didn't know many of the people whose company she enjoyed in the last year. They didn't have much time to make up the list and send out invitations, and Diana's address book is the sort of resource I would be looking to for assistance in the circumstances.

This is an excellent point. In her short but busy adult life, she did manage to acquaint herself with all manner of societies: Hollywood, fashion designers, journalists, charity administration, medical professionals, diplomats, political people, lawyers, all filling up one hell of an "address book". To say nothing of the mainstays in her life, the friends and the staff and her "rock"! :rolleyes: Somehow I doubt Hallmark ever made an address book big enough to store Diana's acquaintances. Did they have PDAs in 1997? I don't remember! :lol:
 
This is an excellent point. In her short but busy adult life, she did manage to acquaint herself with all manner of societies: Hollywood, fashion designers, journalists, charity administration, medical professionals, diplomats, political people, lawyers, all filling up one hell of an "address book". To say nothing of the mainstays in her life, the friends and the staff and her "rock"! :rolleyes: Somehow I doubt Hallmark ever made an address book big enough to store Diana's acquaintances. Did they have PDAs in 1997? I don't remember! :lol:

Lol, I don't think so CasiraghiTrio :D. In 1997, a mobile phone was the size of a brick:D. Diana had so much more "acquaintances" than true friends. I still think that even today, some people knew her but we don't know who.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents.

I agree with post #10 -- with all the anger directed at the press, they were looking to deflect it to an easy (and large) target. Survival tactic.

Personally I feel that the Queen had her grandsons in mind and that overrode everything else. She is also a person of habit. She takes comfort in tradition and ritual. I'm sure Diana's death was as much of a shock to her as she knew (as a person who has faced deaths of close family before) it would be to her grandchildren. As a mother and as a grandmother she did what she could to minimize the stress of the Princess of Wales' death for the children's sake because she knew the sharks would be circling. I feel that she wanted to protect them for as long as she could.

Did she act too slowly? By today's standards, yes, but I don't think she was thinking exclusively as a monarch (except with the issue of the royal standard and its mast, which I thought was blown out of all proportion as part of that deflection on the part of the media) at first. She is a traditionalist, she is conservative, and she is, above all, correct in her actions. She eventually came around, but I think she was judged too harshly and by today's "feel-good, touchy-feely" culture.

Conversely, you know what they would have said if she immediately returned to London with the Wales children in tow: "Why is she forcing them to come back so soon after their mother's death? What's she trying to do, throw them into the fire? Too old-fashioned! She should have let them have a week up in Scotland before coming back so they could perhaps have some 'quality time', blah, blah, blah..."

Darned if she did, darned if she didn't. She couldn't win with a desperate press, a PR-savvy PM, and a son-in-law willing to excoriate her family while committing his own personal sins.
 
Who is the son-in-law? I do not know to whom you are referring.
 
Sorry -- Diana's brother, Charles Spencer. I was working out in my head how to refer to him and I thought I'd emphasize the "in-law" aspect of his relationship to HM to make my point.
 
Sorry -- Diana's brother, Charles Spencer. I was working out in my head how to refer to him and I thought I'd emphasize the "in-law" aspect of his relationship to HM to make my point.

Charles Spencer is her godson I believe.
 
Fine. Either way. May we agree that he has a relationship to the Queen? Good.

I was merely attempting to underline his hypocrisy at the time of his sister's death and his jump onto the "Criticize the Royal Family bandwagon".
 
I think and this is not say that that I agree, that people under duress and grief say and do many strange thing. I feel guilt also rose its ugly head here. Charles Spencer, IMHO, was trying to make up for all the things he should have done for his sister when she was living. He was also very grief stricken. I think the whole Spencer family was. It was a very trying time. He directed his anger inappropriately, but everyone survived. As, I said, guilt on his part was a portion of that speech and maybe he did feel "righteous" anger as to how she was treated by her in-laws. No one really knows how he really felt. It is easy to criticize. What didn't happen was the walls didn't come tumbling down, he got it off his chest, right or wrong and the RF survived to go on. And practically no where on earth, except forums such as these is this even discussed. Life has gone on.
 
I see what you mean now. I think I was a little snappy there. :ninja:
 
This is always the problem for an institution that makes a point of not answering back. The press wanted to deflect the blame from the paparazzi and the editors who were slavering over their photos, so where did they deflect it to? The cold unfeeling royal family who didn't treat her right when she was alive and who didn't care that she'd died. Mohamed Fayed, who owned the hotel, the apartment, and the driver and bodyguard (and possibly, if some reports are to be believed, the limo company itself), wanted to deflect the blame from his own turf, so where did he deflect it to? The evil and bigoted royal family who personified the Establishment that he was aching to be accepted by. Charles Spencer, who'd driven one wife to a nervous breakdown and was on his nth girlfriend by the time of Diana's death, and who'd recently spent months not on speaking terms with Diana, wanted to deflect the blame for not treating her right, so where did he deflect it to? The royal family, who didn't realise what a treasure they had and who ill treated her from the start, because as long as they were such bad people, it made him look better by comparison.

And where did the royal family deflect it to? Nowhere that I can see because the blame, for many years, stuck firmly to them, and people tended to forget the culpability of the press, the involvement of Fayed, and the stunning crassness of the behaviour of Charles Spencer. Very convenient to have the royals to blame for everything, but at least to an extent it's the action of a coward.
 
Wow Elspeth, an absolutely brilliant post! :flowers::angel:
 
i have to agree with elspeth. everyone was pointing the finger in the days following the accident - except the RF. charles spencer was the biggest disappointment IMO. the press...well you'd pretty much expect them to try to make someone else look bad but her own brother...he did virtually nothing to help her during or after the marriage but made no mention of his own shortcomings in terms of trying to make her life easier. HM knows that by responding to the media, you leave yourself open to misinterpretation and the whole "new can of worms" with every word you say and i think she was and is correct to stick to her guns and not say anything at all. people always say that if you don't respond you look guilty but the media ALWAYS turn it around. i'm not saying that she shouldn't have done anything but the criticism she received was out of order.
 
Yes, that was brilliantly said, Elspeth. Everyone was looking for a scapegoat, and who better than the silent (read: "cold") royal family, who the press knew would not speak out in their own defense? Fayed played along, even fed the idea of the "royal enemy" because it deflected attention from his own implications.

"Diana was hounded to death by the press," said Earl Spencer.
To which the press retorted, "Well, if she had still been in a happy marriage, would she have been in that situation? No, no, it's the royals fault that she was in Paris unprotected, blah blah blah....."
And then Fayed comes out swinging: "Yes, the royals, they killed her! She was going to marry my son, and they hate me, so they killed her!"
 
This is always the problem for an institution that makes a point of not answering back. .
A. MEN. It was the blame game, and the RF lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, dear Elspeth, I must agree with you completely. The poor woman died in an automobile accident that could so easily been avoided, but then in hindsight so many many accidents, automobile and otherwise could have been so easily avoided.

I still say that a very good part, at least the audible and visual part, of the British public had a collective nervous breakdown, whether in this percentage of that percentage of cases it was a feigned or real nervous breakdown, it got very ugly and very spoiled childish.

And no matter what the RF did or did not they were going to be blamed because a young woman on a trist got in a car chased by a pack of crazed photograhpers wanting a picture of her and her latest love with a driver who was probably drunk. The car wrecked and the poor woman, who did not have on a seat belt, was killed. So somebody had to be blamed. Crazy, isn't it???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom