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

[Menarue]

I chose him because I'm fascinated by the fact that Fawkes was ranked 30th in the 2002 list of the 100 Greatest Britons, sponsored by the BBC and voted for by the public....

Jo I think that the reason for that vote is that people love fireworks.

 

[Carminha Stalker]

My goodness, I´m begining to feel that I should never ever dared to write down my own private, particular, personal , free opinion on a question asked for this thread. As a citizen of a country where for 20 years there was a military dictatorship and you could be jailed tortured and killed for speaking up your mind - but now, for the grace of God, living in a democratic environment, I thought I could express myself as much as anybody else.
I respect the fact that many of you, if not almost all, think Her Majesty and the Rf, blameless and persecuted by an irate public a demented press , a world gone mad.
Fair enough. Those are your views. I also admire the British RF, I only questioned one moment, one decision.
Yes, I think Diana was a human being despite all her failures. As I think PC was a human being too despite that telephone conversation. Now, if you want to compare her with a mass murderer (despite the 100 list), I think that´s going a bit too far.
May I, please be allowed to have my opinion without feeling like I´m back to the "good old days" when to express them was very dangerous indeed.

 

[Menarue]

Which mass murderer? Guy Fawkes was hanged before he could become one if that is who you mean. He attempted to blow up Parliament and because of this we have a wonderful evening of bonfires and fireworks....

 

[kimebear]

Guy Fawkes is the one I was talking about which is why I used the term "attempted mass murderer".

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Which mass murderer? Guy Fawkes was hanged before he could become one if that is who you mean. He attempted to blow up Parliament and because of this we have a wonderful evening of bonfires and fireworks....

Guy Fawkes was condemned to be drawn and quartered but managed to throw himself down the scaffold and died of a broken neck, or so I read at Wikipedia...

 

[Jo of Palatine]

My goodness, I´m begining to feel that I should never ever dared to write down my own private, particular, personal , free opinion on a question asked for this thread.

Arminha, why do you feel personally attacked by other members having other opinions? I'm sure this is a misunderstanding as so far I believe we are discussing personal opinions and it is okay to see things in a different way.

 

[Skydragon]

I hardly think the word 'rantings' is appropriate, or necessary. The tragedy of Diana's death was a shock that was felt around the world. I watched as much of the live television coverage as I could that week and one theme was quite consistent...every single newsperson commented on how quiet and still London was, despite the throngs of mourners who arrived in London.

London was it's normal bustling self. Whether it was felt around the world is a little Dramatic, I'm sure there were many who didn't know or care.

There was, IMO, no excuse for the disgraceful display by the recreational mourners.

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon: With all due respect, but you seem to have mixed up what I said about the service in Scotland and what Menarue was telling about two funerals she saw.I never even mentioned the service in London.

You did in fact talk about the funeral, which was of course held in London.

We are not debating a common person´s funeral. I bet that quiet funeral and the loud one, didn´t include a Queen, her son´s previous wife, her grandsons´ mother.

The service held at Crathie was a normal Sunday Service, not a funeral, not a memorial. A quiet place for the RF to go, reflect and speak their words to their god.

 

[Warren]

May I, please be allowed to have my opinion without feeling like I´m back to the "good old days" when to express them was very dangerous indeed.

Carminha, this is a forum where robust debate is encouraged so long as it remains civil. Posting here can hardly be likened to life under a military dictatorship.

 

[Skydragon]

I chose him because I'm fascinated by the fact that Fawkes was ranked 30th in the 2002 list of the 100 Greatest Britons, sponsored by the BBC and voted for by the public....

Umm, could it be that parliament now is compared to the parliament then perhaps!

 

[Amelia]

I think that The Queen did what she though was best at the time. She was there with her grandsons, she could see how they had reacted to the news Diana's death, she could see how they were coping with it all and was able to use this fist hand knowledge to decide what was the best thing to do. This may not have resulted in the actions others would have liked to have seen but as they were not there with the boys who were they to say she was wrong.

 

[Monika_]

.....There was nothing noble about the scenes around Buckingham Palace those days and unlike you I don't buy that the reactions were understandable and people just being human because the Royal Family had so 'badly' treated Diana.

You understand and forgive Diana everything while you understand and forgive the Royal Family nothing. To you, everything happened because the Royal Family didn't do what they were supposed to do or they did what they weren't supposed to do and everything that Diana did was just natural reactions to what was done to her and therefore understandable and excusable and well Diana was just being human.

I'm sorry I don't buy it. Your worldview is too one-sided and not 'human' at all.

I think it's interesting that you attribute so many opinions to me while condemning others for ranting.

 

[Elspeth]

Monika, I think ysbel is trying to make the point that some of the reactions to Diana's death were inexcusably savage. Not all - nobody's saying that - but there was an ugly atmosphere during that time. I remember being appalled at some of the stuff going on, and I know some of our American friends were mystified; several of them were asking me questions along the lines of "what's happening over there? this isn't how the Brits usually behave," and all I could say was, "I have no idea, but I hope it doesn't last."

Diana's problems, and the country's reaction to her death, weren't all attributable to faults by the royal family. There were plenty of things they could have done better, and there were plenty of things Diana could have done better. But there really was serious hostility directed toward the royal family by many parts of the public, not least because of manipulation by the press. There was also support for the royals, there was also indifference, and as you said there was also stunned silence, but there was aggression too. Just as with the whole sorry story of the Wales marriage, there was a spectrum of faults and emotions. We have people in this forum who routinely ignore one side of the spectrum and those who routinely ignore the other, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's a huge grey area in the middle of it.

 

[Monika_]

Elspeth, thank you for your reply. I don't dispute or deny the two sides in this situation and I totally understand what you are saying. I just find the personal snipe aspect of it unwarranted. People can disagree and yet still be respectful of one another. But thank you for trying to 'translate.'

 

[ysbel]

You haven't disagreed with my post so I could only construe that you agreed with it.

 

[Carminha Stalker]

Sorry for comparing this thread to a military dictatorship. I accept robust debate, I also accept that everybody is intitled to his/hers point of vue, since of course this is thread in the Royal Forums, in´st it.
By the way, Skydragon, with all due respect but you keep mixing up my remarks. When I mentioned the service in Scotland, you yourself said"perhaps because it was a British funeral..." And I replied I wasn´t talking about a funeral, but a Sunday service in Scotland.
The only time I mentioned a funeral was when Menarue, was telling me about 2 funerals she had seen where people acted in completely different manners.
I hope with all my heart this clears up what I wrote.

 

[Skydragon]

By the way, Skydragon, with all due respect but you keep mixing up my remarks. When I mentioned the service in Scotland, you yourself said"perhaps because it was a British funeral..." And I replied I wasn´t talking about a funeral, but a Sunday service in Scotland.
The only time I mentioned a funeral was when Menarue, was telling me about 2 funerals she had seen where people acted in completely different manners.
I hope with all my heart this clears up what I wrote.

Which is why I said that 'I seem to have got lost' in post 167.

As I said, the service in Scotland was a normal Sunday service, nobody would have expected an alteration for a woman who no longer attended that church. When you go in to a CoS service, you have time to say your own prayers, as you do within the service. It only seems to be those that have never attended a CoS service that seem to have expected more.

Quiet reflection for the bereaved, not a performance for the media seems to have been the right decision.

 

[Monika_]

Considering the extraordinary circumstances, surely Diana's name could have been mentioned at the service that Sunday morning for the sake of her boys; the boys who were the Queen's priority above all else that week. And it would not have been a play for the media; it would have been the compassionate thing to do. It only became a story because it was business as usual with the boys being expected to attend services just hours after learning of their mother's death, and then sitting through a sermon that had to make them wonder if it really happened.

 

[GillW]

Considering the extraordinary circumstances, surely Diana's name could have been mentioned at the service that Sunday morning for the sake of her boys; the boys who were the Queen's priority above all else that week. And it would not have been a play for the media; it would have been the compassionate thing to do. It only became a story because it was business as usual with the boys being expected to attend services just hours after learning of their mother's death, and then sitting through a sermon that had to make them wonder if it really happened.

My friend and I were at Crathie Kirk this last weekend (27 July 2008) and afterwards discussed just this very topic. We agreed that, actually, to have the death of their mother mentioned during the service, in front of a watching congregation, would have been very traumatic and painful for them both in the rawness of their bereavement. Maybe, after all, not rubbing salt into the terrible wound - in public too - may just have been the more sensitive decision.

Thinking more deeply about it, I now believe the decision was probably correct, and so I admit to changing my personal opinion after all these years....

 

[Skydragon]

surely Diana's name could have been mentioned at the service that Sunday morning for the sake of her boys

For that very reason, the sake of the boys, it was not. They knew their mother had died in a accident, they didn't need to be reminded in front of anyone.
---------------------
I am curious as to why 'people' seem to think Diana's name should have been mentioned, what purpose would it have served her sons? The boys were probably just about 'coping' and the last thing many bereaved people need is a public reminder!

 

[Menarue]

Monika, I don´t want you to take this the wrong way but it has been explained, quite plainly I think, that this is a British thing. It is the way of the old school, no fuss, no hysterics, if the Queen thought it was better not to mention Diana´s name she knew what she was doing. Her first thought was for the boys and I don´t think she wanted them to break down in public, not during the service but leaving the church with all the villagers waiting to have a look. The Queen is a wise woman, she knows what it is like to be gawped at, she has had that since she was a little girl playing in a square behind railings with people staring. She learned from an early age to ignore them and to carry on, the learning process was part of her royal training for the future and that is what she is trying to do with the princes,teach them to live their lives but not give an unseemly spectacle to the watchers. What the boys were thinking we have really no idea, but quiet inner prayer can give strength, and I am sure all present in that little church were thinking of Diana without the necessity of hearing her name spoken by the priest.

 

[Monika_]

GillW...

I see your point and it does make sense. I appreciate the input.

 

[sthreats]

Diana's name at service

For that very reason, the sake of the boys, it was not. They knew their mother had died in a accident, they didn't need to be reminded in front of anyone.
---------------------
I am curious as to why 'people' seem to think Diana's name should have been mentioned, what purpose would it have served her sons? The boys were probably just about 'coping' and the last thing many bereaved people need is a public reminder!

I have to agree with Monika that it is strange that there was no mention of Diana at the service. In our church, when there is a death of a family member that person is mentioned in the prayers-Jill, the sister of Amy Jackson. Sometimes it is done the weekend of the death other times the weekend of the funeral. It is a prayer for the departed soul as well as for their family. The departed does not have to be a member of the church-just the family member. It is done with respect and support.

Why is there an assumption that the members of that church would have been gawking at the boys like a carnival. I think not. Given everyone's stress maybe that little extra prayer would have helped. (Prayer always helps me).

Maybe a different question is why take the children to church at all just hours after learning that their mother is gone. I know the Queen loves her grandchildren but if there were such a concern about public reminders and facing people-maybe they should have stayed home.

 

[Monika_]

Menarue...

I understand. But I'd just like to add that I hope the boys really wanted to attend services that morning. I could understand if they would have preferred not to face anyone that morning and, if their feelings came first, it should have been their choice. I understand about protocol, but what is the protocol when you learn of your mother's sudden death at the age of 12 and 15?

 

[Monika_]

I have to agree with Monika that it is strange that there was no mention of Diana at the service. In our church, when there is a death of a family member that person is mentioned in the prayers-Jill, the sister of Amy Jackson. Sometimes it is done the weekend of the death other times the weekend of the funeral. It is a prayer for the departed soul as well as for their family. The departed does not have to be a member of the church-just the family member. It is done with respect and support.

Why is there an assumption that the members of that church would have been gawking at the boys like a carnival. I think not. Given everyone's stress maybe that little extra prayer would have helped. (Prayer always helps me).

Maybe a different question is why take the children to church at all just hours after learning that their mother is gone. I know the Queen loves her grandchildren but if there were such a concern about public reminders and facing people-maybe they should have stayed home.

I suppose it could be argued both ways. Personally, I think it was such an intimate setting that the boys would not have been gawked at, but I agree that maybe the mention of her name would have brought them to tears. Okay, fine. But again, I hope it was their choice to attend in the first place, and not simply because it was expected of them.

 

[Skydragon]

In our church, when there is a death of a family member that person is mentioned in the prayers-Jill, the sister of Amy Jackson. Sometimes it is done the weekend of the death other times the weekend of the funeral. It is a prayer for the departed soul as well as for their family. The departed does not have to be a member of the church-just the family member. It is done with respect and support.

It simply isn't done in the majority of churches here. I can't think of one service I have been to over a number of years where a deceased person, not of the parish, is mentioned by name. Even when my first husband died, he was not mentioned during the service but the vicar, did offer his condolences after the service and in private.

Why is there an assumption that the members of that church would have been gawking at the boys like a carnival. I think not.

Gawk is perhaps a little strong, however, I can well imagine the few who did attend Crathie muttering 'poor wee things', which is enough to break the resolve of anyone not to make an exhibition of themselves by crying, in public.

Maybe a different question is why take the children to church at all just hours after learning that their mother is gone. I know the Queen loves her grandchildren but if there were such a concern about public reminders and facing people-maybe they should have stayed home.

I should imagine, being a religious woman, that HM wanted comfort from her church. As in many cases, you follow a routine, that is what gets many through the initial shock. The boys of course would have followed HM's lead, they could hardly have been left to their own devices at Balmoral and probably wanted to keep their family close. Crathie is a tiny church and nobody would expect hoards of unknowns to turn up.

 

[Monika_]

Well, if Crathie is a tiny church and nobody would expect hoards of unknowns to turn up, then I guess that supports the point I made earlier about it being an intimate setting where the boys would not have been gawked at.

 

[Monika_]

GillW.......

Gill, when the royals attend the services in Crathie, aren't their names mentioned? I believe they are and that is what makes this a different situation. If their names were not normally mentioned then it could be argued that it's not the way it's done, etc. However, in this particular case, if other members of the family are mentioned, it only magnifies the omission of Diana's name. I realize she was divorced from Charles, but she was the boys' mother...again, the boys the royals were putting first.

I'm not arguing with the original point you made, I understand that, I'm simply explaining why some people feel strongly about the omission of her name.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, if Crathie is a tiny church and nobody would expect hoards of unknowns to turn up, then I guess that supports the point I made earlier about it being an intimate setting where the boys would not have been gawked at.

An intimate setting with restricted public access. members of the staff and some of the villagers are allowed in. Tiny as opposed to the size of a normal town church.

To answer your question as to whether the royals names are mentioned as part of a church service, yes, Diana was removed from the list after the divorce I believe. What was the vicar supposed to do, add on 'and Diana the deceased ex wife of the Prince of Wales'?

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/EP_Scot.htm

[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]O[/FONT][FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia] LORD our heavenly Father, high and mighty. King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth: Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may alway incline to thy will, and walk in thy way: Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies, and finally after this life she may attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord[/FONT]

or

[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]A[/FONT][FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]LMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord[/FONT]

These are the set prayers and to my thinking there is nowhere to suddenly slip in Diana's name

 

[Monika_]

To answer your question as to whether the royals names are mentioned as part of a church service, yes, Diana was removed from the list after the divorce I believe. What was the vicar supposed to do, add on 'and Diana the deceased ex wife of the Prince of Wales'?

No, but he could have been instructed to do so. I'm sure the Queen has some pull there, if she so chooses.