The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997)

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 08-23-2007, 04:36 AM
GillW's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Nottingham, United Kingdom
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Out of 5 what would you rate Althorp as GillW?
....6 !!

There is honestly nothing I can see that I would improve. Whilst it was nice years ago to get a personal guide for the house tour, the number of visitors now makes this impractical. However the staff stationed in every room are equally as knowledgeable, helpful & friendly, so whilst there may be more people inside at any one time, it is not (in my experience anyway) overcrowded, nor rushed. There is a lot to see, gardens to enjoy, places to sit & take it all in. Even the guide book is good! - historical information, nice illustrations - a lovely souvenir.
__________________

__________________
  #102  
Old 08-25-2007, 12:06 AM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
At first I was quite upset Diana was not buried, at least, in Westminster Abbey, simply for the convenience of those of us who can visit Central London with no trouble...Even Elton John had mentioned it in an article of People magazine that he would have liked Diana buried there. But I can imagine what a shrine it would become..almost like Canterbury and Thomas a' Becket...

Then I realized the space limitations of the Abbbey and also the fact the Windsors' still considered her not a member of the family....although they did offer to "re-instate" her when she had returned to Althorp and the burial party was having lunch. ( I can imagine the conversation....."Now they want her back..........")

That being said, there was one tabloid in America in the weeks after her death and a very peculiar sentence in Paul Burrell's book (A ROYAL DUTY) to intone she might have after all been cremated and interred with her father after all in the Spencer Vault....

But after all that and reading this thread and visiting Althorp myself, I do hope she is on the island and I do hope she rests in peace in a place where her sons can be given a lovely place to visit and think of their mother...
__________________

__________________
  #103  
Old 08-25-2007, 02:03 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: richmond, United States
Posts: 4
Diana should be at Royal Burial Grounds at Frogmore

Does no one have a sense of Historical Perspective?? Diana, Princess of Wales was the mother of a Future British Monarch. She should have been buried in a place of significance with the Royal Family at Frogmore. Not carried off to an insignificant little island by her money grubbing brother.

Think of it. One day Queen Camilla (mistress of the Prince of Wales) will lie with the Royal Family at Frogmore while the mother of King William V sits in a little lake. Even the Duchess of Windsor was granted burial at Frogmore! You can bet the Duke and Duchess of Windsor understood the significance of that.

Earl Spencer did not do his sister any favor by whisking her away from the Royal Family in her death. He did nothing to protect and secure her memory and rightful place among the Royal Family as the mother of King William V (God willing.) Instead he made her resting place into something more akin to Elvis. I am sure that the Prince of Wales was more than happy to send her off to Althorp.

The Queen and Royal Family should have insisted for the sake of Prince William and Prince Harry that she be buried with their family. Earl Spencer should have seen the importance of that resting place.

Hopefully one day King William V will see to it that his mother's remains are placed in the Royal burial grounds where they belong. As is befitting a Princess of Wales and the mother of a King.

It seems as if everyone has forgotten what it means to be ROYAL. -Even the Royals!
__________________
  #104  
Old 08-25-2007, 02:16 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: richmond, United States
Posts: 4
P.s.

The Queen also should have put her foot down on Elton John singing that Marilyn Monroe song in Westminster Abbey! UHHHGG! How vulgar! It pains me to think about it!
Somehow I don't think that's what Diana would have chosen for a program of remembrance in Westminster Abbey. I think she would have come up with something a little more dignified, important, and appropriate. I don't think it would have included associations with Marilyn Monroe.
__________________
  #105  
Old 08-25-2007, 02:47 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkgs View Post
Does no one have a sense of Historical Perspective?? Diana, Princess of Wales was the mother of a Future British Monarch. She should have been buried in a place of significance with the Royal Family at Frogmore. Not carried off to an insignificant little island by her money grubbing brother.

Think of it. One day Queen Camilla (mistress of the Prince of Wales) will lie with the Royal Family at Frogmore while the mother of King William V sits in a little lake. Even the Duchess of Windsor was granted burial at Frogmore! You can bet the Duke and Duchess of Windsor understood the significance of that.

Earl Spencer did not do his sister any favor by whisking her away from the Royal Family in her death. He did nothing to protect and secure her memory and rightful place among the Royal Family as the mother of King William V (God willing.) Instead he made her resting place into something more akin to Elvis. I am sure that the Prince of Wales was more than happy to send her off to Althorp.

The Queen and Royal Family should have insisted for the sake of Prince William and Prince Harry that she be buried with their family. Earl Spencer should have seen the importance of that resting place.

Hopefully one day King William V will see to it that his mother's remains are placed in the Royal burial grounds where they belong. As is befitting a Princess of Wales and the mother of a King.

It seems as if everyone has forgotten what it means to be ROYAL. -Even the Royals!
It makes sense but I don't totally agree with you. Diana never fitted into royal life, she felt rejected. She always said that she indentified herself more with people in lower social class, she is by being burried in Althorp : everybody can pay her a visit. Her worst fear I think was to be kept away from them, she WAS the People's Princess after all.

Princes William and Harry are big enough to tell what they want to do. If they wish to visit their mother's grave, they can and as it was said previously, if King William V wants to move her grave, he can.

Althorp is her roots, where she was a lady, not a princess but still she had this special gift to help people. I prefer to see her burried in Althorp because we know that visitors come for her, not for the place or other graves like it could have been the case at Frogmore. At Althorp she is no VIP, just Lady Diana Spencer, one of the people.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #106  
Old 08-25-2007, 03:25 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,666
My problem with her being buried at Althorp is two fold - one is that the princes have to get permission from their uncle to visit the grave. It is after all on his land. Two is the fact that it allows Earl Spencer to make money off her memory and not to really let her rest in peace.
__________________
  #107  
Old 08-25-2007, 05:22 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkgs View Post
I am sure that the Prince of Wales was more than happy to send her off to Althorp.
The Queen and Royal Family should have insisted for the sake of Prince William and Prince Harry that she be buried with their family. Earl Spencer should have seen the importance of that resting place.
It seems as if everyone has forgotten what it means to be ROYAL. -Even the Royals!
Charles as the EX husband of Diana would have very little say in what was done with the remains. That is what happens after a divorce, it becomes the responsibilty of the dead persons 'blood' relatives.
Diana didn't get on with the royal family and of course was no longer a royal, so it would have been inappropriate to place her with the royal family.
The royals seem fully aware of what they are and as such Diana, as a EX wife, was buried where her brother, mother and sisters wanted.
__________________
  #108  
Old 08-25-2007, 05:52 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
As mother to the future king Diana was still a member of the royal family and still a Princess of the UK without an HRH. I'am sure the Queen would not have objected if the Princess of Wales was buried at Frogmore. Its William and Harry's choice to move her remains.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #109  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:01 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
No Princess of the United Kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
As mother to the future king Diana was still a member of the royal family and still a Princess of the UK without an HRH. I'am sure the Queen would not have objected if the Princess of Wales was buried at Frogmore. Its William and Harry's choice to move her remains.
No. With her divorce from The Prince of Wales, Diana ceased to be a member of the royal family. Exactly like Sarah Ferguson. Exactly like Mark Phillips. Exactly like Anthony Armstrong-Jones. Of course Diana remained family to Prince William and Prince Harry. Of course Sarah remained family to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Of course Mark Phillips remained family to Peter and Zara. And of cource Anthony Armstrong-Jones remained family to David and Sarah.

Former female spouses of Peers however do have the right to continue (until remarriage) their former husband's title. So Diana became known as 'Diana, Princess of Wales' and Sarah became known as 'Sarah, Duchess of York'. Both derived their status as a Royal Highness from their marriage to a Prince of the blood royal. With the end of their marriages, logically they lost their status attached to the marriage.

And, as last, Diana was never a Princess of the United Kingdom. Like Sarah never was. And like Camilla is not. By marriage to a Prince of the blood royal, they share their spouse's social rank and can be known with their spouse's title(s) en titre courteoisie. None of them however, did acquire nobility or any title on their own by the marriage. There are only five Princesses of the United Kingdom: Anne the Princess Royal, Beatrice of York, Eugenie of York, Louise of Wessex and Alexandra of Kent.
__________________
  #110  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:03 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
As mother to the future king Diana was still a member of the royal family and still a Princess of the UK without an HRH. I'am sure the Queen would not have objected if the Princess of Wales was buried at Frogmore. Its William and Harry's choice to move her remains.
Diana was never a Princess of the UK.
Quote:
the Princess of Wales, during her marriage, has been always and only HRH The Princess of Wales. She has never been "Princess Diana" - for the style of "Princess Own-christian-name" in the United Kingdom can come only with birth, never with marriage, as is evident from the style of others who became princesses by marriage and are known accordingly as "Princess Husband's-christian-name".)......Lady Diana, Princess of Wales will no longer be a princess, just as Lady Diana, Duchess of Cornwall will no longer be a duchess. The rank of princess came with marriage and it will go when the marriage ends.
Princess of Wales
__________________
  #111  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:07 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
No. With her divorce from The Prince of Wales, Diana ceased to be a member of the royal family.
Taken from the royal family's website
Quote:
The Prince and Princess continued to share equal responsibility for the upbringing of their children. The Princess, as the mother of Prince William (second in line to the throne), continued to be regarded as a member of the Royal family.
Diana, Princess of Wales > Biography > Marriage and family
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #112  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:12 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
continued to be regarded as a member of the Royal family
'regarded' being the operative word - it does not say she was still a member.
__________________
  #113  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:13 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Diana was never a Princess of the UK.

Princess of Wales
Okay, but that website stated that she no longer was a Princess of Wales which is incorrect. She lost her HRH but she retained her title as Princess of Wales.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #114  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:17 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
'regarded' being the operative word - it does not say she was still a member.
But she was still considered a member of the family, she was buried under a Royal Standard.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #115  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:19 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Okay, but that website stated that she no longer was a Princess of Wales which is incorrect. She lost her HRH but she retained her title as Princess of Wales.
She retained nothing. She never was Princess of Wales on her own. She was -by courtesy- addressed as such, being the spouse to The Prince of Wales.

After her divorce Lady Diana Spencer formerly Mountbatten-Windsor opted for the social custom that divorced and widowed spouses of Peers continue to use their former spouse's main title, purely out of courtesy. Had Diana married to Dodi, then she would become Lady Diana Al-Fayed. Not that she would have 'lost' anything. (She had no title however). It is just the social way of addressing to her.
__________________
  #116  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:24 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
But she was still considered a member of the family, she was buried under a Royal Standard.
She was not buried under the Royal Standard but under her personal Standard. That is an honour which can be requested by the sons, for an example. Like a resigned President or an Archbishop can be buried with all honours, even when they factually were no longer a President or Archbishop.
__________________
  #117  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
Okay, but that website stated that she no longer was a Princess of Wales which is incorrect. She lost her HRH but she retained her title as Princess of Wales.
No, the website is correct. Her title after her divorce was 'Diana, Princess of Wales' not "Princess of Wales" as she was no longer married to The Prince of Wales. If Diana had remarried she wouldn't have had 'princess of Wales' in her name at all. If the person she married was untitled Diana then would have reverted back to the title that was actually hers "Lady Diana surname"

After her divorce, Diana was A princess of Wales, not THE Princess of Wales. There is a difference and so she did not have the Princess of Wales title, that title belongs to the wife of the current Prince of Wales. She was no longer his wife so didn't have the title.


PS HenriM, Princess Margaret's former husband is Antony Armstrong-Jones, not Anthony. They are 2 separate if not similar names, Antony is the rarer form.
__________________
  #118  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:34 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
I said a Royal Standard not the royal standard and it really isn't her personal royal standard. That royal standard is reserved for the wife of the Prince of the U.K. Princess Alice was also buried under it. Sophie and Camilla are currently using the standard.

The english peerage system is confusing so both Diana and Camilla are only Princess of Wales by courtsey.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
  #119  
Old 08-25-2007, 06:35 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M. View Post
No. With her divorce from The Prince of Wales, Diana ceased to be a member of the royal family.
I think the Queen made an exception for Diana; however, I think that Her Majesty was intentionally ambiguous so as not to insult Diana's dignity nor the dignity of the Royal House and it was a fine line to walk; for, technically speaking, you are right, when she divorced she should have lost her royal status.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #120  
Old 08-25-2007, 11:42 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: richmond, United States
Posts: 4
The point is Historical Significance

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth View Post
It makes sense but I don't totally agree with you. Diana never fitted into royal life, she felt rejected. She always said that she indentified herself more with people in lower social class, she is by being burried in Althorp : everybody can pay her a visit. Her worst fear I think was to be kept away from them, she WAS the People's Princess after all.

Princes William and Harry are big enough to tell what they want to do. If they wish to visit their mother's grave, they can and as it was said previously, if King William V wants to move her grave, he can.

Althorp is her roots, where she was a lady, not a princess but still she had this special gift to help people. I prefer to see her burried in Althorp because we know that visitors come for her, not for the place or other graves like it could have been the case at Frogmore. At Althorp she is no VIP, just Lady Diana Spencer, one of the people.
Diana's Historical Significance lies in her having been a member of the Royal Family whether she felt like she "fit in " or not. At her death she was Diana, Princess of Wales. She was the mother of a future British Monarch.

In the first place, being buried at Althorp does not identify one with the lower classes.

In the second place, there is no such title as The People's Princess. She was Diana, Princess of Wales.

One's place of burial can add importance and significance to one's place in history. It secures their memory as among those who were important. For instance, if one were to be buried at Westminster Abbey it would be assumed that they had "Historical Importance."

It is my understanding, that the Queen was willing to bury her at Frogmore. The Queen understood her significance as a future Monarch's mother and as Diana, Princess of Wales. Earl Spencer acted like a child throwing a tantrum and proved himself to be a HISTORICAL pinhead by not securing his sister's place of importance in the Royal Family. She may not have been styled HRH any longer, but she certainly had a place among the Royal Family. She is Prince William's mother. She had not remarried. Her title was still Diana, Princess of Wales. Earl Spencer treated her as a "Pop Princess", not a Real Princess.

Forty years from now not many will remember Princess Diana the way she is remembered now. Those who remember her will be old and many people will not have actual memories of her. Placing her at Frogmore, however, would be evidence of her significance. Earl Spencer devalued her historical importance by burying her at Althorp.

She was no longer Lady Diana Spencer, but Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of William V. She belongs at Frogmore.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
althorp, diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Diana picture thread I royalrelic Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 202 08-19-2005 03:53 PM
The Late Princess Diana Yennie Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 171 02-20-2005 01:19 PM
The Late Princess Diana Kelly B Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 186 05-29-2004 01:43 PM




Popular Tags
belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]