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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, there certainly seems to be a double standard going in with regard to Harry in comparison to his brother going on by some posters including yourself, in which Harry is to be condemned for indiscretion in speaking about this, when both William and Harry have spoken openly in recent times about their mother and the effect it had on them. [...] Harry gets hammered for being indiscreet, in talking about the walk behind the cortège with you specifically citing his past behaviour, and his brother gets a pass. Fair? I don't think so!

What? :huh:

So, I ask again, if William imparts his feelings in the upcoming documentaries about his mother and her passing, and his opinion about HIS walk on that day, is he going to be equally condemned for being 'indiscreet' and how he shouldn't speak about such things, or is he going to get a pass and Harry be blamed?

Dunno. Not my thing. :confused:

Perhaps, in spite of the sensibilities of some posters here, both men want to speak about that week and the impact it had on them. Perhaps both want to be honest about their feelings as young royals walking behind their mother's coffin. Perhaps they both want to get the information out into the public arena about how they felt and feel about their beloved mother's passing. Also, if they don't wish to include their father in these memories, then that surely is up to them, not us. And I emphasise them, not just one brother.

Now this I can speak to because it is exactly this kind of thing that made Diana such an issue for the BRF. :sad: If Diana was more discreet it is probable that she would still be the Princess of Wales and would be Queen one day.

If William and Harry both start down that thorny road of 'sharing' their private lives with the public, I predict that King Charles will be Britain's last monarch.
 
Denville, in your previous post you've pointed out something intrinsically important that jumps out at me.

One thing that was very much a positive is the way they all did fall in together to support each other during the funeral. Philip, which a lot of people grew to understand could not abide Diana and her actions, walked. Charles, the ex-husband free after a very acrimonious marriage, walked. These two people realized the importance of being there for William and Harry. They weren't walking behind Diana's coffin because of a heart wrenching loss but because they were a support system for two boys who were suffering such a loss.

Same with just about everything else we discuss. Harry's openness in his interviews create both negative and positive reactions. They're both valid.
I think that Philip and Charles did walk to support the boys, because it would have been diffcult for them without someone to help them along. I think the RF wanted them to walk because it was proper protocol but they did make allowances for the fact that they were very young and it would not be easy and if they had really felt unable to face it, I think that it is a given that they would have not been pressurised. And I think that Phil was right, if he said that WIll would regret it if he didn't, I think he would have felt bad afterwards..but it was hard for them to do.
But given that they DID manage to find a way of coping, and had the support of their father and grandfather, I think that they shoudl now let any negative feelings they have about the walk go, and not allude to them later on, for the publc who don't need to know this. but well harry aint very bright.. and I can't help feeling that the whole Heads togehter thing seems to be bringing out this confessional streak in them.
 
I don't see Harry as a not so bright person but I also see a willingness to perhaps to be a tad bit too open. Many, many places Harry has been described as wearing his heart on his sleeve and it shows with his interactions with people. He's open, he's caring, he gets down to their level and communicates.

Harry has also said that he's kept things inside and buried for a very long time and its just recently that he's found the freedom to talk about his trials and tribulations that keeping things pushed back somewhere where the sun don't shine and that wasn't healthy. He's had a breakthrough and its a spurt of emotional growth for him. With that comes the work towards emotional maturity that needs to continue and its an ongoing challenge that sometimes takes a lifetime.

Even with the best of intentions of his words, he runs the risk of being misinterpreted by other people. That's something he probably still has to master. I do agree with you that the hurts and the feelings experienced 20 years ago by both William and Harry personally with their mother's death isn't something that should be hitting every tabloid in the world regardless of what the good intentions of doing it would be. If they were addressing a group of people in grief counseling without the press and cameras on a private basis, that would be a good venue perhaps but not something for all and sundry to hash and rehash over and over and over again.

As I said before, perhaps this latest "revelation" will be something that Harry will look back on and wish he hadn't done. I think his intentions were in the right place but the results from it totally missed the mark. Mistakes are how one learns what *not* to do in the future.

Trust me on this. I've made more than my share of mistakes. They all seemed like the right thing to do at the time though. :D
 
well Osipi we're getting a bit OT here I suppose but you've just said it.. if Harry IS feeling an emotional rush about his Mum's death now, with the 20th Anniversary coming up, that's understandable.. and its good problaby for him to talk about it.. but to FRIENDS, to his brother, his girlfriend.. even his dad and grandparents. (or a therapist) NOOOT to the press. let Di be remembered for her sweet nature and her love for her boys, not for the rows that erupted.
 
In some cultures its considered uncouth to speak ill of the dead. I wish someone could wave a magic wand and cause a change in mass consciousness in this regards. Mine's in the shop.
 
well Osipi we're getting a bit OT here I suppose but you've just said it.. if Harry IS feeling an emotional rush about his Mum's death now, with the 20th Anniversary coming up, that's understandable.. and its good problaby for him to talk about it.. but to FRIENDS, to his brother, his girlfriend.. even his dad and grandparents. (or a therapist) NOOOT to the press. let Di be remembered for her sweet nature and her love for her boys, not for the rows that erupted.

Agree 100%. :flowers: Well said. That was the issue with Diana. It is never a good sign when anyone starts to use the public as a shoulder to confide in. But in this instance, I'm not sure that is what Harry is doing. His motives are not clear (to me).
 
The motives may become clearer to all of us when these documentaries for the 20th anniversary appear. What the brothers say, and perhaps more importantly how they say it, will be interesting I'm sure.
 
In some cultures its considered uncouth to speak ill of the dead. I wish someone could wave a magic wand and cause a change in mass consciousness in this regards. Mine's in the shop.

again we are probably a bit OT, but while it is IMO wrong/unkind to speak ill of people who have just died, becuase they can't defend themselves and their families are at their most sad, it can't be the case as a permanet thing surely? If someone is a public figure and is "up for discussion", their faults are as much a part of their lives as their good points, so I think there's a point when one can discuss their faults provided it is done fairly and witout malice.
 
Gracefully put, thanks Osipi..

I think that the Princes' Stepmother has 'the right idea' in her silence, discretion and tact...
NO-ONE can use or misinterpret words left unsaid ! x

So amen to that !
My impression after a round of British media is that Prince Harry, who boosted his profile with the Invictus project, has now a sort of "there we go again" effect.

If I was Prince Harry's counsel, I would retreat here and keep a distance indeed. His deeply beloved mother is no more in our world. Bless her memory. And let the Princess rest in peace. Even "modern monarchy" can not do without some distance and indeed 'mystique'.
 
Last edited:
I listened to the podcast made of Earl Spencer's interview on the BBC. I've never liked the man and I think he's a hypocrite. However that does not necessarily mean that he is lying when he says that he was lied to by courtiers and told that the boys wanted to walk when it is obvious they didn't. Who asked/told them to walk, and why?
 
I listened to the podcast made of Earl Spencer's interview on the BBC. I've never liked the man and I think he's a hypocrite. However that does not necessarily mean that he is lying when he says that he was lied to by courtiers and told that the boys wanted to walk when it is obvious they didn't. Who asked/told them to walk, and why?

I don't know. I know it's what royals do for major royal funerals though. It's why thought it was appropriate and touching. I was wrong.
 
I have never been a big Earl Spencer fan. I just see him as someone that can't be taken on his word. (just a feeling) So I'm not sure what I believe on this latest bit of information. And I agree duchessrachel, I often wondered why Diana didn't return to Althorp.
 
I have never been a big Earl Spencer fan. I just see him as someone that can't be taken on his word. (just a feeling) So I'm not sure what I believe on this latest bit of information. And I agree duchessrachel, I often wondered why Diana didn't return to Althorp.

The Earl knew that offering accomodation to Diana meant that the serenity of Althorp would be passé. The estate would be besieged by media -it was the height of the media witch hunt- and probably he thought that it really would not be too strange to expect that proper accomodation would be provided for the mother of the future King, by the high and the mighty.

Giving Diana a housing at Althorp means: easy solution for the royal family and the Government, and the burden was for the Earl's account. He was wise enough to keep distance.
 
Last edited:
Right. Otherwise, there would be no objective history.

If someone is a public figure and is "up for discussion", their faults are as much a part of their lives as their good points, so I think there's a point when one can discuss their faults provided it is done fairly and witout malice.
 
The Earl knew that offering accomodation to Diana meant that the serenity of Althorp would be passé. The estate would be besieged by media -it was the height of the media witch hunt- and probably he thought that it really would not be too strange to expect that proper accomodation would be provided for the mother of the future King, by the high and the mighty.

Giving Diana a housing at Althorp means: easy solution for the royal family and the Government, and the burden was for the Earl's account. He was wise enough to keep distance.

That was my recollection as well, that Althorp could not accommodate the craziness that was Diana's life at the time. Security costs alone would have been astronomical.
 
If he wanted to protect her, why did he deny her a house on Althorp after her divorce?
IIRC, he did offer her a house on the estate that was away from the front gate and deep into the private area away from the tourists who had been welcome since the 1970s. She, however, wanted a different house on the estate that was closer to the public area and therefore much harder to secure. That's what I remember from what was published before her death - it may or may not be fully accurate.
 
IIRC, he did offer her a house on the estate that was away from the front gate and deep into the private area away from the tourists who had been welcome since the 1970s. She, however, wanted a different house on the estate that was closer to the public area and therefore much harder to secure. That's what I remember from what was published before her death - it may or may not be fully accurate.

I just read the book "Diana: Her True Story" and what I remember is that he had offered it to her but then took it back. I may be completely off because it has been awhile since I read it. If I am wrong I certainly don't want to spread disinformation. Hopefully someone can clear this up.
 
I just read the book "Diana: Her True Story" and what I remember is that he had offered it to her but then took it back. I may be completely off because it has been awhile since I read it. If I am wrong I certainly don't want to spread disinformation. Hopefully someone can clear this up.

yes he did offer her a house and took ti back but that was because he was worrying about paparazzi being around the estate and her PPOs were concerned that the particular house was too close to the walls to be secrure. He offered her other houses but Diana took offence and felt angry and refused his offers.
 
yes he did offer her a house and took ti back but that was because he was worrying about paparazzi being around the estate and her PPOs were concerned that the particular house was too close to the walls to be secrure. He offered her other houses but Diana took offence and felt angry and refused his offers.
Again Diana being unreasonable and throwing a fit but some people find a way to still blame Charles Spencer for the situation. Them not being on speaking terms is no reflection on him because Diana was always not speaking to somebody.
 
Diana wasn't known for being the most rational of people to deal with. When presented with reasons why the place that she requested wasn't such a wise idea and offered something else that would afford more privacy, it was her way or the highway and the highway it was with a whole lot of resentment from not getting what she wanted in the first place.

Had she been a bit more rational about things, she may have come to see that it made sense to have another place on the property. Then again, if she had been a bit more rational, she never would have given up her personal protection either. Lets just say that Diana was rash when it came to making decisions sometimes.
 
yes well I think that she was in a very bad place at times during the last few years, hardly surprisingly. She felt that Charles S had offered the house and then gone back on it..and was feeling that the whole world was against her.
I think he could have been more tactful and checked out the idea of whether that house was a good idea first... but Diana was on a hair trigger and was unreasonable. However I am not happy with CS's "mouthing off" so often about his sister.. which IMO can only serve to please the meida who want controversy...
but clearly DuchessRachel has read a biased view of the story from Diana HTS and I was just pointing out that it was a bit more complex than Morton's version.
 
Diana was always in a bad place, she had horrible relationships with various people throughout her life and was known to be vindictive even as a child. That horrible place she was in lasted for a few decades.
 
Diana was always in a bad place, she had horrible relationships with various people throughout her life and was known to be vindictive even as a child. That horrible place she was in lasted for a few decades.



This is the type of post I hate. You speak as if you were there part of the family or in the circle of friends
All you know is what you have chosen to know. I could say things about you as I know you as much as you knew Diana.
I think we are supposed to say in my opinion etc and be able to back up our opinion
 
You can hate my post all I want doesn't change that the people who knew Diana during her 36 years talked and discussed her moods, her shutting people out for not doing what she wanted them to do, Diana herself mentioned that she threw her step mother down a flight of stairs; but I guess you need her to preface her own memory with "in my opinion" so it doesn't put a damper on your opinion of her.

Now back to Charles Spencer I have personally not come across any information of him not treating his sister well during her life; the house story IMO isn't a negative for him. But just seeing how he treated Victoria and how he conducts his personal life causes me to feel he is not the nicest person.
 
She didn't "throw her down a flight of steps". She did push her and it was very wrong. but I know you're prejudiced against Diana and I'm nto really going to bother arguing. Of course she did wrong things. She also did a lot of very good things.
yes se did have "horrible relationships " with many people and good relationhips with others. I have horrible relationships with many people.. often becuae they are horrible people.
 
I am not prejudiced against Diana, I am prejudiced against making excuses for her bad behavior and blaming others for it. You said Diana was unreasonable in the last year of her life and I simply pointed out her unreasonable and bad behavior and cruelty towards others was a habit since her childhood.
The other poster implied that somehow my response to you was not personal testament from Diana and those who experienced it but something I made up.

I'd be happy to talk about the good Diana did but I can't stand by when I feel her bad qualities are being excused or ignored.
 
Last edited:
Then her good behaviour was alsos "a habit since her childhood", sicne she did charity work as a girl, was helpful and good natured and friendly with staff, at Althorp etc
 
Back
Top Bottom