20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017

[Mermaid1962]

Perhaps not, but she does have to sign bills into law, laws that she might not agree with. She also has to entertain official guests that she might not want to.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I consider myself a moderate Diana fan but the excuses of her behavior and people using this documentary to tear down the BRF is what irritates me. Denville you stated you feel the program should have been edited better but IMO it was edited fine; in all honesty it was a rather boring program with hardly anything new discussed. I actually found it a little disappointing that it didn't focus more on Diana as a mother and spent more time on her charity work which I personally don't care about.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

well I think that it is hard to avoid stuff about Diana at times.. but I do like her so I'm happy to read threads on her..and I like to have a discussion on her. However, there are people with a violent dislike of her, who will never hear any praise of her without getting annoyed and there are people who are so passionately in her favour that they cant' hear any criticism of her. So it can be wearing to be a moderate Diana fan.

And I thin that this documentary, which I haven't seen but have read some of the stuff in the paper (directly taken from it).. is liable to provoke a good deal fo controversy. I DO believe ti would ahave been possible to avoid the more painful bits that are bound to lead to angry debate, if the boys and their advisers had edited a bit more...

1. I agree with your first comments. I liked Diana a lot when she was a young wife and mother. I was not happy with some of her actions the last year or so of her life and was seriously disappointed in her when her multiple affairs and some other things became common knowledge. I've made my peace with it and try not to be too fawning or critical nowadays.

2. Can you give an example of something you've read about that is in the documentary you think will provoke controversy? What is an example of a painful bit you think will lead to angry debate? I would like to understand where you are coming from on this because I don't see it the same way.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps not, but she does have to sign bills into law, laws that she might not agree with. She also has to entertain official guests that she might not want to.

yes but that is not the same thing. this was a family matter and she could certainly intervene to refuse to permit her grandsons to be pressured into something emotional like this. Her role as a constitutional monarch is a different matter

1. I2. Can you give an example of something you've read about that is in the documentary you think will provoke controversy? What is an example of a painful bit you think will lead to angry debate? I would like to understand where you are coming from on this because I don't see it the same way.

well as far as I can see they have brought up the whole business of walking behind the coffin as we can see from this debate here. And IMO it has led to unpleasant debate about Diana, her life, the RF the Spencers etc.
And even tings which are essentially innocuious can sound "odd" to those outside the family, esp for those who WANT to abuse Di or whoever it is.. WIll said something like he could imagine Diana coming to see his kids at Bath time, and "creating a big fuss" (Sorry I can't recall the exact wrods but I read something like this last week).
Clearly he meant it affectionatley, but I could well believe that soemoen who was prejudiced against Diana, saying "Oh look her own son says she would have created a big fuss with her grand children."
Just as people have said that he is obsessive because he said that he was "constantly talking about her to his children."

I consider myself a moderate Diana fan but the excuses of her behavior and people using this documentary to tear down the BRF is what irritates me. Denville you stated you feel the program should have been edited better but IMO it was edited fine; in all honesty it was a rather boring program with hardly anything new discussed. I actually found it a little disappointing that it didn't focus more on Diana as a mother and spent more time on her charity work which I personally don't care about.

Why don't you care about her charity work? that was one of the biggest things in her life.. other than being a mother. I think that it is high time that she was given more creidit for it rather than people always going on about the sadness and problems of her private life.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I personally didn't find anything new regarding the charity talk that I hadn't already heard about a dozen times. I guess this program involving her kids I thought it would be more enlightening but that's just how I feel.

 

[Queen Claude]

The overall article is about Diana, Dodi and other lovers but it is part of a series:

Starting today, on what would have been Charles and Diana’s 36th wedding anniversary, and over the next four weeks in this groundbreaking Weekend magazine series marking the 20th anniversary of her death, we’ll be shedding fresh light on the ever-fascinating story of Diana, drawing on interviews with her relatives, confidantes, friends and other close figures, many of whom have never spoken publicly before.
We shall reveal:

• Charles’s astonishing reaction when Diana wore sexy lingerie for him.
• The explosive full story of what really happened the night Diana confronted Camilla.
• How William threatened to report his mother to Childline when Diana slapped him.
• Charles’s birthday gift to Camilla that Diana described as ‘like a dagger to my heart’.
• The fact-finding mission on which William and Harry have embarked to learn all they can about their mother.

Read more: Why Diana dumped the Muslim doctor she hoped to marry | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is clear that dear old Sir Walter Bagehot's wise councel that a monarchy is best kept in the shadow of the Crown has been left. E-ve-ry-thing lies on the street. A monarchy needs some distance, some mysteriousness, some sacrality even. All this, the documentaries, the books, the articles is just turning the British monarchy into Big Brother 2.0

 

[Mbruno]

It is clear that dear old Sir Walter Bagehot's wise councel that a monarchy is best kept in the shadow of the Crown has been left. E-ve-ry-thing lies on the street. A monarchy needs some distance, some mysteriousness, some sacrality even. All this, the documentaries, the books, the articles is just turning the British monarchy into Big Brother 2.0

Weren't the love affairs of Henry VIII, or Charles II, or George III's sons, or Edward VII also public knowledge back in their days though ? What has changed IMHO is, first and foremost, the attitude towards the monarchy, which doesn't get the deferential treatment it used to get in the past, and, second, the emergence of mass media communication, enhanced in the last 10 years or so by social media.

 

[Dee Anna]

If you fully read my post you would have seen that I took issue with the word "constantly". Which is not the scenario you're describing at all. Any activity done constantly (with the exception of breathing) is usually obsessive and unhealthy. For example see the difference between - John Doe drinks alcohol regularly vs. John Doe drinks alcohol constantly.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had.

No confusion, my thoughts still stand.

I doubt William is going around "constantly" ranting on about Diana. He also followed up with the comment that he regularly talks about Diana to his children. It was an interview, a rather difficult one. He was asked a question and answered it as best he could.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Weren't the love affairs of Henry VIII, or Charles II, or George III's sons, or Edward VII also public knowledge back in their days though ? What has changed IMHO is, first and foremost, the attitude towards the monarchy, which doesn't get the deferential treatment it used to get in the past, and, second, the emergence of mass media communication, enhanced in the last 10 years or so by social media.

It is true that in Ye Olde Days the royals went off-road as well, but these days with 24\24 news there is really a need to take a step back and keep some distance. The new French President wants to end the hyperactivity of the ADHD-president Sarkozy and the so-called "normality" (read: banality) of Monsieur Normal (president Hollande on a scooter to his maîtresse). The young man has understood it. He knows that the trappings of state and a certain behaviour can be used as an instrument indeed. Seeing "Wills" and "Harry" discussing "Mum" in public with Elton John and other "friends of Diana".... No... And what now? Will we hear tapes of Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales declaring her love Lover Number Four, or was it Number Seven?

:-(

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Aren't you the person who still believes royalty are better than the rest of us because of their blood? And you also have a problem with women who had normal jobs marrying into royal families? You have a lot of archaic beliefs when it comes to royalty.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Aren't you the person who still believes royalty are better than the rest of us because of their blood? And you also have a problem with women who had normal jobs marrying into royal families? You have a lot of archaic beliefs when it comes to royalty.

You are not consequent. As long as you do not go for a democratically elected head of state, you are as every bit as archaïc as me, Madam. Actually there is nothing more archaïc than going down to your knees and mumble "Your Royal Highness" to a Kate or to a Meghan.

My point is that when we all, well-educated people with a sound mind, want to go on with something as a monarchy, a form of state which designates the head of state by the womb he/she once crawled out, then it is only sustainable when indeed something of the fairytale (and that is it) is kept.

I have to stick to the rules, krack my dear old knees in reverence to you and pay for your royal lifesphere? Okay, may I -in return- request Your Most High- and Wellborn ladies and gentlemen to stick to the old rules as well? Or is that too much asked? If not, I would advocate an end to this ongoing vaudeville and go for a republican system.

 

[Denville]

I personally didn't find anything new regarding the charity talk that I hadn't already heard about a dozen times. I guess this program involving her kids I thought it would be more enlightening but that's just how I feel.

well I didn't watch it and I don't think I will. I was dubious about how Will adn Harry seem to be talking a lot about Diana and themselves lately, and felt that it would be embarrassingly twee ("you're in the photo in the tummy")or perhaps too controversial and stir up old angers. ANd IMO it has.
I think that their referring to problems that happened at the funeral and other things they said were bound to set off "Diana haters" or "Charles haters" ad I think that's what happened. Not that I feel they were wrong in essence to pay tribute to their mother, but I don't think they have the smarts to do it well and I think I was correct.
I would like ot hear more of her charity work.. because in latter years all we get on royal forums is people either nagging about Charles' behaviour or Dian'as in the their private life. and her good work for charity is ignored.

 

[royal rob]

I have just finished watching it and I think it was amazing. There is nothing in it to upset Charles or anyone else. She has given us two wonderful men and helped so many causes. If anyone finds fault in any of it then I think they have the problem.
I find it astonishing that anyone can criticize something they haven't watched.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have just finished watching it and I think it was amazing. There is nothing in it to upset Charles or anyone else. She has given us two wonderful men and helped so many causes. If anyone finds fault in any of it then I think they have the problem.
I find it astonishing that anyone can criticize something they haven't watched.

I have watched it. And while every bit was true, it is also what the boys did not show. So it was a very rosé-tinted view. As a retrospect of two loving sons to their mother: great tribute. As a retrospect on the person which was Diana, Princess of Wales: far from complete.


For an example: I am sure that the children of Mr Trump can make exactly the same loving tribute about their father. We all will know that such a tribute -with every bit being true- will be far from complete.

 

[Denville]

I have just finished watching it and I think it was amazing. There is nothing in it to upset Charles or anyone else. She has given us two wonderful men and helped so many causes. If anyone finds fault in any of it then I think they have the problem.
I find it astonishing that anyone can criticize something they haven't watched.

I have read much of the text of the programme, and I found it off putting. Why waste my time watching the whole programme? From what other people have said, there are quite a few things in it that I think are just causing trouble and controversy. and I'm no great fan of Will and Harry.

 

[wyevale]

Earl Spencer pleads with Channel 4 not to broadcast Diana tapes

Suddenly the 'noble' Lord discovers the value of privacy and discretion...

 

[Denville]

well yes I like Chas S in many ways. I think he's an intelligent man and interesting. However I think he has been foolish in talking about Diana and in his involvement in the Morton book initially but he may have thought at the time he was doing her some good. but he does talk too much. and the more you talk to the media, the more they and the public will clamour for more and for dirtier stories. and make them up if they haven't got them. A discreet silence wont protect you, but it will lessen the chances of your being splashed all over the papers or internet so much and people will realise that if you haven't sad anytihg you at least can't be accused of "saying too much".

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

well I didn't watch it and I don't think I will. I was dubious about how Will adn Harry seem to be talking a lot about Diana and themselves lately, and felt that it would be embarrassingly twee ("you're in the photo in the tummy")or perhaps too controversial and stir up old angers. ANd IMO it has.
I think that their referring to problems that happened at the funeral and other things they said were bound to set off "Diana haters" or "Charles haters" ad I think that's what happened. Not that I feel they were wrong in essence to pay tribute to their mother, but I don't think they have the smarts to do it well and I think I was correct.
I would like ot hear more of her charity work.. because in latter years all we get on royal forums is people either nagging about Charles' behaviour or Dian'as in the their private life. and her good work for charity is ignored.

May I ask what smarts you feel WnH would need to have to do a documentary like this? I operated under the position that anything they said could be taken the wrong way by the media. Do you feel Harry should not have made the comment about walking at the funeral?
If you decide to never watch the documentary you aren't missing very much I found it quite a waste of my time.
I will say I thought the tummy comment was adorable; [emoji11] [emoji16] and it was moments like that as well as Harry's comments about their identical children's outfits that I liked.

and I'm no great fan of Will and Harry.

Really, I did not know this. Rather shocked too hear you say that.

 

[Curryong]

Neither William nor Harry referred to any problems around their attending the funeral or walking in it in their tribute to their mother. That's what comes IMO of commenting on something you haven't seen.

It's Earl Spencer who's stirred things up in that direction since the doco in the BBC podcast which Dman posted. I don't know if you've heard that either, Denville.

The documentary was about as non-controversial as it was possible to be IMO, and as I like Harry I enjoyed seeing both sons talking in a nice, kind and loving way about their mother.

 

[wyevale]

I watched half an hour of it tonight, but feel I 'got the jist'..

Turned over to watch the Ypres commemoration which seemed more important, and less saccharine...

 

[Pranter]

Neither William nor Harry referred to any problems around their attending the funeral or walking in it in their tribute to their mother. That's what comes IMO of commenting on something you haven't seen.

It's Earl Spencer who's stirred things up in that direction since the doco in the BBC podcast which Dman posted. I don't know if you've heard that either, Denville.

The documentary was about as non-controversial as it was possible to be IMO, and as I like Harry I enjoyed seeing both sons talking in a nice, kind and loving way about their mother.

In all fairness Harry has said something very recently about that and he was not positive about it either.


LaRae

 

[MARG]

Yes, he said children should never be asked to do such a thing. However, this was a oncer, a silent walk which he, as a child happily agreed to. The benefits of 20/20 hindsight and the not surprising trauma it caused give a different view.

He never said he was made to walk, he was asked. However, the chance of such a situation with its own particular dynamics occurring again are infintisimal.

 

[Pranter]

I don't know that I would use the term 'happily agreed to'...we don't really know for sure however I rather doubt he was happy to do it.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Yes, he said children should never be asked to do such a thing. However, this was a oncer, a silent walk which he, as a child happily agreed to. The benefits of 20/20 hindsight and the not surprising trauma it caused give a different view.

He never said he was made to walk, he was asked. However, the chance of such a situation with its own particular dynamics occurring again are infintisimal.

And a 12 year old child, even without having received a recent shock and in the beginning stages of grief could be influenced to agree to doing something he didn't want to do, may have even been influenced to think it was his duty to his mother to do it. I sincerely doubt "happily" was anywhere close to an emotion that was being experienced.

I have watched it. And while every bit was true, it is also what the boys did not show. So it was a very rosé-tinted view. As a retrospect of two loving sons to their mother: great tribute. As a retrospect on the person which was Diana, Princess of Wales: far from complete.


For an example: I am sure that the children of Mr Trump can make exactly the same loving tribute about their father. We all will know that such a tribute -with every bit being true- will be far from complete.

I don't understand why some people expected this to be an unbiased historical documentary. Her sons were not going to be involved in a program that rehashed her problems and scandals. It was as I expected- a sweet tribute to a mother who died too young.

 

[royal rob]

I think some posters are disappointed there was nothing to criticize. So sad if that's how you view life. And to bring Trump into this thread is beyond absurd

 

[Osipi]

One thing that is clear is that different people have different viewpoints on the facets of Diana's life that are of interest to them. Each and every facet, whether it be her charity work, her private life and loves, her relationship with her sons as a mother and the chronicles of her fashions, is available somewhere out there in documentaries, magazines, TV interviews and many, many places in cyberspace and books on Diana could fill a wall space in a private library.

Everything adds up to the big picture that was Diana, Princess of Wales. One person's memories may clash with another's and its by looking at everything objectively from all angles the we can formulate our own opinions of this one woman who, like it or not, affected the world around her.

 

[MARG]

I don't know that I would use the term 'happily agreed to'...we don't really know for sure however I rather doubt he was happy to do it.


LaRae

And a 12 year old child, even without having received a recent shock and in the beginning stages of grief could be influenced to agree to doing something he didn't want to do, may have even been influenced to think it was his duty to his mother to do it. I sincerely doubt "happily" was anywhere close to an emotion that was being experienced.

Perhaps I should have said "blithely". We are also talking about a boy who did not yet understand the depths of grief, a child . . . yes, but a true "innocent". The same innocent who lobbied hard and didn't really understand the reasons why he was told he could not accompany his father to France to bring his mother home. That is why I believe he said: "a child should never be asked to do that".

To put it simply, he did not understand at all what he was going to do except walk with his dad who also didn't know what to expect. Harry has spent the best part of twenty years trying to reconcile himself to the consequences. Tony Blair et al did not know if William would accompany them until the day of the funeral.

Prince Philip had not planned to walk but he said he would (I'm guessing) to support William whom (I believe) would not leave Harry to walk without him. That this was a unique occasion is emphasised by their joining the rest of the family to walk behind the Queen Mother's gun carriage.

 

[Denville]

I doubt if he "blithely" or "happily" agreed to do anything so painful.... but he may not have realised, when he agreed to do it, just exactly what it entailed. IN fact I'm sure he didn't, and he found it very upsetting when he was doig it.

Neither William nor Harry referred to any problems around their attending the funeral or walking in it in their tribute to their mother. That's what comes IMO of commenting on something you haven't seen.

It's Earl Spencer who's stirred things up in that direction since the doco in the BBC podcast which Dman posted. I don't know if you've heard that either, Denville.

The documentary was about as non-controversial as it was possible to be IMO, and as I like Harry I enjoyed seeing both sons talking in a nice, kind and loving way about their mother.

That's not my impression.. I thougt that Harry and Will had said that they were not happy about walking in the funeral and felt that it should not have been asked of them.. at least that harry certainly said that. And Charles S has said before that he ddn't think the boys should have been doing this, as far as I can remember.. But if they say something as well, he's bound to put his 2 cents worth in..and bring the subject up again.

May I ask what smarts you feel WnH would need to have to do a documentary like this? I operated under the position that anything they said could be taken the wrong way by the media. Do you feel Harry should not have made the comment about walking at the funeral?





Really, I did not know this. Rather shocked too hear you say that.

I take it you're being sarcastic so I wont respond.

 

[Duchess Sophie]

I think it is great that William and Harry have spoken out. They had to endure a lot after her death:
- Diana is alive, living in Africa!
- Diana was pregnant with Dodi´s child
- Diana was killed on royal order/government order
- Diana was a lunatic

etc. etc.

It is great William and Harry could finally talk about how she was to them, after all insane things that has been written about her.