Last Hours, Death, Transfer from France, Funeral and Interment


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Rose, you're absolutely correct. Harry was most likely very overwhelmed by his emotions at the time, and really had no idea how to deal with them. I think his age had a great deal to do with that. He was only twelve, and that age can be confusing at best. A person is changing from a child to a teen, and attempting to figure out who he/she is. Now, when you add a death of a beloved parent to the mix, you have a very ugly situation on your hands. Harry was most likely in a deep sea of a lot of emotions; loss, grief, anger, confusion, just to name a few. Add to that all the other changes one goes through in teen years, and an explosion is almost inevitable.

In terms of the Prince of Wales, I think he has done a wonderful job as a parent, especially after Diana's death. He tried to the best of his ability to give his sons the support that they needed. I can't even imagine being in that situation.

'Mummy' written in Harry's handwriting was a very poignant tribute from a grief-stricken child to a beloved parent. The parent who symbolized comfort, love and safety, which I think is another factor in Harry's outbursts (or at least I'm taking a guess). He didn't know where to turn to find those emotions again.
 
I've always wondered if Charles was involved in the music selections for the funeral. Some of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard was sung that day.
 
That wouldn't surprise me at all. The Prince of Wales has exquisite taste in music.

I've always wondered if Charles was involved in the music selections for the funeral. Some of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard was sung that day.
 
Me neither. I was actually very surprised to how caring PC treated his former wife. He earned my respect. It just shows that not everything published during "War of the Waleses" is to be believed.
 
That was/ is the most gut- wrenching/ heartbreaking symbol of Di's funeral to me....
YES! I was crying during al the ceremony, but when this card "mummy" appeared it was heartbreaking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Me neither. I was actually very surprised to how caring PC treated his former wife. He earned my respect. It just shows that not everything published during "War of the Waleses" is to be believed.



I do not want to be ironic, but I would prefer him to be caring with her DURING their wedding!:bang:

At the end it was tooo easy. After-all she was his sons' mother!!!
 
Yes, of course. But he had no need to go there himself and escort her home. But I agree; too little too late
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, of course. But he had no need to go there himself and escort her home. But I agree; too little too late

Right. But despite all the story, and the mistakes Prince of Wales did during his marriage, he is not a bad person. He should have felt very sad.

I saw the film "The Queen" and I'd rather believe their description of characters and reactions. Among all the RF, Prince Charles was the most human.
 
I've always wondered if Charles was involved in the music selections for the funeral. Some of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard was sung that day.

Me neither. I was actually very surprised to how caring PC treated his former wife. He earned my respect. It just shows that not everything published during "War of the Waleses" is to be believed.
I agree, Sirhon! The singing that day was wonderful, and I would not be surprised if the POW helped select it. I have read in various books, including The Day Diana Died that the main planner behind the funeral was William.
Olebabs- I was surprised too, in a way, but also not. I believe that Charles loved Diana as the mother of his children. And numerous people have said that after the divorce they were good friends.And I believe Diana always had a place in her heart for Charles.
 
@ roseroyal: I think you are right. One always has a place in the heart for the father/mother of your children. But my surprise was more in the fact that he showed som determination. Such a shame they didn't have time to develope that friendship further.
 
I think Diana never stopped loving Charles. She just couldn't tolerate the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think that it was ludicrous for Diana to be buried on an island
in the middle of a pond.
go here

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net..._3293961_n.jpg
user_offline.png
she has been made remote from the people , the common people who loved her .

Cant help thinking that Charles would never have allowed this, but, being divorced, he probably had no say in the matter.
 
Princess Diana`s resting place was entirely the choice of the Spencer family. Earl Spencer in particular was adamant that his sister be buried in a quiet location, free from " grief tourists " Whatever we might think of Charles Spencer, surely this was a decision that he was entitled to make?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did anyone dispute that it was Charles Spencer's decision to make?
The previous poster expressed that it was a bad decision and Prince Charles, if he had a say, wouldn't have left her out there alone.
 
This is a relevant page from the BBC website. The emphasis is obviously that Diana would be buried with her family as she was no longer a member of the royal family.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/burial.html

From what I've read it also meant that the 2 boys would be able to visit their mother's grave in private
 
Last edited:
I think it was a sensible decision.

At the time Diana died there was a lot of hysteria. There are also a lot of weirdos around. By arranging the burial where he did, Earl Spencer ensured dignity for his sister in death that was not always there in her lifetime. I can understand him wanting her to have peace and I can understand why there might have been an element of selfishness to have her back for the family rather than sharing her.

Remember, it was the Spencer family who reportedly wanted a private funeral. I think theirs, Williams and Harry's feelings are the only ones that should have been considered. The public didn't know her or own her even though they may have thought otherwise.
 
Is it the case that the senior male of a family always gets to make such a decision? Legally speaking, was he considered the primary next of kin? Or is it because he was the oldest surviving sibling? If the oldest had been female, would she have gotten to make the decision? (I don't know the birth order in that family).

The two boys were her heirs, and although not of legal age, it's interesting to me that Earl Spencer could conceivably have over ridden their views or have imposed his own view (I don't know that he did, I'm just saying it's interesting that it was entirely his decision).
 
I think that Earl Spencer was speaking on behalf of the family and would have discussed funeral arrangements with his sisters and talked to the 2 boys.

The Earl was also very vocal in blaming the BRF for all of Diana's problems and was particularly strong on her exclusion from the family, i.e. no longer royal.

So then its a matter of choices - Royal places of burial (ie Frogmore)are not possible; public cemetery is not a consideration. Family vault in local church is the obvious choice but they don't want it to become a shrine or something added to the tourist map.

Only the family can get to the Island. Its private and I think that at the time something private for the family was pretty high on the agenda.

With hindsight, perhaps Frogmore would have been more appropriate.
 
I've always thought the Oval was a beautiful resting place chosen for the Princess of Wales. Her grave is secure from pilgrimages and those who would desire to desecrate it.
If William and Harry wish to move her then Frogmore would be appropriate imo.
 
Princess Diana`s resting place was entirely the choice of the Spencer family. Earl Spencer in particular was adamant that his sister be buried in a quiet location, free from " grief tourists " Whatever we might think of Charles Spencer, surely this was a decision that he was entitled to make?

Surely Earl Spencer has done all he can to ensure that he personally profits financially from 'grief tourists'? Having Diana on his estate ensured the visitors would come in numbers.
 
This is from the home page of the Althrop site

Where the money goes

Althorp pays profits from visitor activity, including the "Diana: A Celebration" exhibition at Althorp and overseas, to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, a registered charity (no.1064238). There is a minimum annual donation of £10,000. Since 1998, Althorp has generated over £1 million for the Fund.


Anyone wanting to visit the site:
Althorp | Day Visits & Public Events | Useful Information
 
To me, a tomb inside a country church would have been perfect... of course with a monument and statuary etc.

Or why not the same inside St Pauls where Diana was married ? there it would be secure and available for anyone
to visit ... read the inscriptions... spend a few moments in thought.
In life she was so much a part of the people , the ordinary people who loved her... in death she has been taken away to a private estate.... it could have been so different.

I dont think her brother was moved by a profit motive, the house and Diana exhibition is only open for a month after all ... hes mega rich, he wont be worried about the takings for a mere 31 days.
 
Last edited:
Well the main reason the Princess was buried on the Spencer estate was to prevent her grave from becoming a pilgrimage site. When she died there was so much shock and upset that it was a wise choice to bury her on the Oval. As an admirer of the Princess I've always respected and agreed with this choice. It was time to put her to rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Althorp pays profits from visitor activity, including the "Diana: A Celebration" exhibition at Althorp and overseas, to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, a registered charity.
This will change from the beginning of next year as the Memorial Fund will be shutting up shop.
From the official website ("Frequently Asked Questions"):

How long will the Fund continue operating?

The Fund is spending out its capital and does not limit spending to its income.
This decision was made because we believe that we can achieve greater and more
sustainable improvements in the lives of disadvantaged people around the world by
pursuing a carefully targeted programme of work over a limited period of years.
We aim to close by 31 December 2012 and the Fund will no longer operate after this date.

...The Fund is no longer actively involved in fundraising and aims to have spent out its
existing capital by 31 December 2012.


.
 
Thanks Warren for the update.
 
Surely Earl Spencer has done all he can to ensure that he personally profits financially from 'grief tourists'? Having Diana on his estate ensured the visitors would come in numbers.

I would give some leeway to the Earl. At least the money coming from visitors will allow the estate to remain in the Spencer family. Think of what could happen if the Earl was forced to sell Althrop, including Diana's grave site, because he couldn't pay the taxes?
 
How about doing an honest days work and not making a buck off of your dead sister?
But if the only other alternative for Diana's grave is with her family in a public place, then a secluded island is unfortunately the only place to put her.
 
Last edited:
How about doing an honest days work and not making a buck off of your dead sister?
But if the only other alternative for Diana's grave is with her family in a public place, then a secluded island is unfortunately the only place to put her.

You really need to do some decent research and learn exactly how Earl Spencer receives his income! He is one of the wealthiest aristocrats in the UK and his wealth certainly does not come from the diminishing interest in his late sister. The Earl receives an income from the Althorp estate, that is agricultural rents as well as cottages, he also has 2 smaller estates in other parts of the UK. He also receives an income from forestry and commercial properties which are rented out.

Over the past few years he's overseen a huge project to reroof Althorp House as well as reattaching the tiles on the outside. The project cost 20 million pounds, 10 million pounds was raised by auctioning off the contents of the attics and stables at Althorp. The rest was self funded, no government grants were used.

The Earl runs a Literary Festival (started by his second wife) which is quite successful as well as writing books, non fictional historical tomes. ALthorp House is open for 8 weeks over the summer which is far less time than other privately owned stately homes (6 months is the norm) There is no extra cost for the Diana exhibition (which has fewer people coming to see it) there is however an extra cost if you want to see the upstairs gallery in the House itself. The Althorp estate website has a very tiny mention of Diana, you need to look for it! So Charles Spencer, despite his rather patchy marital history, is and has not exploited his dead sister! He makes far more money from his estates, than he ever has from the Diana exhibition. The exhibition to cover its costs now tours the US which is still 'Diana territory' and there are people there who are willing to pay to see it.

When she died the other option was for her to be buried in the local church with her Spencer ancestors, but it was very small and could not cope with what initially would have been large groups of people. By burying her at ALthorp, the family would have privacy and the 'crazies' would be kept away from her burial spot. It was the right decision to make.
 
Well that certainly is a matter of opinion.

You really need to do some decent research and learn exactly how Earl Spencer receives his income! He is one of the wealthiest aristocrats in the UK and his wealth certainly does not come from the diminishing interest in his late sister.

Does anyone know who is the current wealthiest aristocrat in Great Britain?
 
Back
Top Bottom