The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 08-23-2005, 12:35 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicky
I think I read somewhere that the Queen actually can overrule Mum, and that the Queen actually has custody. I'm not sure where that would be found though, let me see if I can find any leads.
Well Since nobody seems to be sure the best example may be from past history. How was Queen Victoria's upbringing handled after her fathers death. I've read that Queen Victoria's mother exercised almost all power and custody over Victoria so much to the point where the King had rebuked her at a social event. Does anyone have anymore insight on this?

I agree with Frothy on the custodial issue with Diana having full custody. As for Diana having to request permission to take her boys out of the country this may be more of a courtesy so that preperations can be made for security for the boys while they are gone. If the crown is worried about Diana taking off with her boys that would never happen since they are internationally famous and would be recognized in a split second. Diana very much wanted William to take his place as King. I think the Queen would want to be kept abreast of her grandsons lives and thier whereabouts so that she may do her duty and guide William as best as she could for his future role as King and Harry for his role as future Duke. I really don't see Diana not agreeing to this thier birthright. If Charles had died I think Diana would have been just as shocked as Charles was at Diana's death - the nation as well. I don't think anyone would have blamed Diana for it.

If you find a lead let me know, I find this topic very interesting.:)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-23-2005, 01:57 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I really do believe that royal children are treated differently than regular children in this respect. Not only are they members of a family (which would have consisted of Diana and the boys) but they are the future of the monarchy. Had Diana decided to take some action with the boys that the Queen and the Establishment disapproved of, they would have prevented her taking the boys into that situation.

The analogy with the Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria might not work in this situation because the Duchess was extremely over-protective and not likely to move her child out of the safety of Kensington Palace, nor was the Duchess likely to expose Victoria to people outside of royal circles. Also, the Duchess was highly dependent on money from the King, which Diana wasn't (having her own money and many wealthy friends).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:16 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'm sure Charles has a will in which he set out some conditions about what would have happened if he'd died while the princes were children. I really doubt that Diana would have been given a totally free hand with them since the Queen and senior advisers knew that she was so disenchanted with the royals and wanted the boys to be raised differently from the usual royal upbringing. Even if the Queen had been inclined to be hands-off about it, I should imagine that she'd have had pressure applied to her to intervene and take a hand in what happened to the boys.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:21 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Exactly, Elspeth! That's what I was trying to say.

We all know that Diana tended to make emotional decisions. If she had made some decisions for the boys that appeared irrational to the Queen and her advisors, it wouldn't have been allowed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:32 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.
That's nonsense. As part of her divorce agreement, Diana was required to have royal protection officers with the boys in public, she was not allowed to leave the UK without notifying the Queen, and the Queen and the Government reserved the right to modify any plan of travel or vacation for reasons of security for the boys.

She was the mother of a future king and understood there was no way she could determine the children's security if Scotland Yard vetoed her plans. Diana could, and did, dismiss her own right to have royal protection officers for her own safety shortly after her separation from Prince Charles.

Even then, if she was performing her public duties or traveling on behalf of the UK, she was required by John Major to have royal protection officers. Only after the divorce and the loss of her royal rank was she able to finally dismiss the protection for good (against the Queen and Prince Charles' wishes).

Ironically, Diana probably died because she didn't have royal protection officers with her in Paris that night. Scotland Yard would never have allowed to her get into the car with Henri Paul or get away with not wearing her seatbelt.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:49 PM
wlb825's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Temple Hills, United States
Posts: 154
I think she would be still a HRH and william would be in the throne.....
__________________
SMILE SMILE AND SMILE SOME MORE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:54 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think we ought to be able to disagree with other posters without resorting to calling their posts nonsense. It was reported by some reporters that Diana wanted to rely on the Fayed security team for her vacation with her sons on the Fayed yacht. Whether that report is true or not is another matter, but it doesn't warrant having a post being labelled nonsense.

Ysbel, do you have any source for that report? I remember reading something about it, but I don't have a clue where it was now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-23-2005, 04:03 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think we ought to be able to disagree with other posters without resorting to calling their posts nonsense. It was reported by some reporters that Diana wanted to rely on the Fayed security team for her vacation with her sons on the Fayed yacht. Whether that report is true or not is another matter, but it doesn't warrant having a post being labelled nonsense.

Ysbel, do you have any source for that report? I remember reading something about it, but I don't have a clue where it was now.
Hi Elspeth, it came up during that week before her death which I deem as more reliable than anything reported after her death. Like you, I don't remember where it was but give me some time and I'll look.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-23-2005, 04:11 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.
That's another example of what I was talking about. I know that Diana wanted her freedom and probably wanted some privacy for the boys (without prying eyes of a security team)... but it's just not practical for senior royals to not have security. It wasn't safe in the 1970s (the Princess Anne and Mountbatten incidents) and certainly not safe now with Al-Qaeda and similar organizations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-23-2005, 05:04 PM
Mika's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 23
I have an old book about the Royal family, where in fear that things might turn bad at some point, like they were expecting it, Neither Charles, William and Harry were ever allowed to travel together in the same plane, boat, helicopter or car for that matter. You can still see it on the open carriages when they go to Astor or the other places like the Jubilee, they sit them seperately. They say they did this for the protection of the crown and to make sure there was always an heir, a right heir.



When Charles was younger and very unmarried Andrew was forgiven to travel with him as well. Once of course they got married things got switched or perhaps relaxed a bit.



In response to what Diana had done if Charles had died, I am sure her boys would have entered the public duties more younger, just like she was doing before at an early age.



It pains me, as a mother, that those two boys lost their mother and the connection to her family. She wasn't that bad, just misunderstood and very desperate to have someone with her at all times. And if Charles didn't apply anything for the sake of the crown, why should Diana? I think she should had been a little more discreet on her affairs, but I do not condem her for it.



I only wish she had not died at all. Marriage or not. Tittle or not. I liked her very much and I miss her girly "innocent" look and her sons didn't deserve it.:) :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-24-2005, 01:26 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika
In response to what Diana had done if Charles had died, I am sure her boys would have entered the public duties more younger, just like she was doing before at an early age.



It pains me, as a mother, that those two boys lost their mother and the connection to her family. She wasn't that bad, just misunderstood and very desperate to have someone with her at all times. And if Charles didn't apply anything for the sake of the crown, why should Diana? I think she should had been a little more discreet on her affairs, but I do not condem her for it.



I only wish she had not died at all. Marriage or not. Tittle or not. I liked her very much and I miss her girly "innocent" look and her sons didn't deserve it.:) :)

Very Beautiful sentiments Mika!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:01 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Not Saying, United Kingdom
Posts: 309
Quote:
I'm sure Charles has a will in which he set out some conditions about what would have happened if he'd died while the princes were children. I really doubt that Diana would have been given a totally free hand with them since the Queen and senior advisers knew that she was so disenchanted with the royals and wanted the boys to be raised differently from the usual royal upbringing. Even if the Queen had been inclined to be hands-off about it, I should imagine that she'd have had pressure applied to her to intervene and take a hand in what happened to the boys.
It would not have mattered. The Queen would have had no power, other than her rights enumerated in law. I hadn't been aware of the power to forbid them going abroad and to determine their protection, but that's it, then; only rights specific in law to her would have counted. A dead parent's wishes don't mean anything; the surviving parent has the rights.

Of course Diana would have come under pressure, but her rights would have been legal and impregnable. She could, for example, have withdrawn the boys from school and placed them somewhere unsuitable. The Queen would ahve had to give her most anything she wanted in order to keep things sweet until they reached 18.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:15 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika
It pains me, as a mother, that those two boys lost their mother and the connection to her family. She wasn't that bad, just misunderstood and very desperate to have someone with her at all times. And if Charles didn't apply anything for the sake of the crown, why should Diana? I think she should had been a little more discreet on her affairs, but I do not condem her for it.
Given that Diana was on the outs with her family members at various times, it's hard to tell what relationship the boys might have had with the Spencer family had Diana lived.

Remember, she wasn't speaking to Frances when she died (they hadn't spoken for months); she distanced herself from her brother when he refused to let her have a house on the Althorp estate (and I think she was ticked when he asked for the Spencer tiara back); Jane was caught in a terrible conflict with Diana because of her husband's job; and there seems to have always been a rivalry between Diana and Sarah.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-31-2005, 05:44 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I found this posting elsewhere, and I wonder if this is the answer we were all looking for.

"However, it also should be stressed that neither Charles nor Diana actually ever had custody of their children. Their divorce (as well as the York divorce), did not include provisons for custody. This is due to laws passed during the reigns of George I and III (the latter in Royal Marriages act), that the sovereign is the actual legal guardian for royal grandchildren. After Diana's death (in regards to her will), former Prime Minister was named as a guardian for the princes' interest. Diana could never take the princes out of the country without her mother in law's permission. Ditto for Charles."

I knew the part about the parents not being able to take the princes out of the country without permission.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:13 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
you're right iowabelle, this question came from another board i go to but i thought it was a really interesting question.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:18 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
I think if Charles had died, honestly, that the monarchy simply would have folded up. For all that's been said of Charles, he's always been supportive of William's destiny as the future king. If Charles had died and Diana had remained alive with William and Harry in her care, I honestly think Diana would have been reticent to let William step into the role of his father, and that, consequently, she would have supported William's desires to shun the monarchy. That would have resulted, in my mind, in William renouncing his place in the line of succession, and, thus, the end of the British monarch. Believe me, around 1996-1997, the British monarchy was about as close to complete collapse as it ever had been before and likely ever will be during the Queen's lifetime.
__________________
The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children- HRH Princess Michael of Kent
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:29 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by grecka
I think if Charles had died, honestly, that the monarchy simply would have folded up. For all that's been said of Charles, he's always been supportive of William's destiny as the future king. If Charles had died and Diana had remained alive with William and Harry in her care, I honestly think Diana would have been reticent to let William step into the role of his father, and that, consequently, she would have supported William's desires to shun the monarchy. That would have resulted, in my mind, in William renouncing his place in the line of succession, and, thus, the end of the British monarch. Believe me, around 1996-1997, the British monarchy was about as close to complete collapse as it ever had been before and likely ever will be during the Queen's lifetime.

Diana had more respect for the monarchy and the Queen than that Grecka, I feel. I truly believe that Diana wanted to improve the monarchy and not make it seem so unacessable. However, these ideas are considered dangerous by many for good reasons and bad reasons.

I do understand what Bagehot says about "not letting daylight in upon the Monarchy." That is true to a certain degree. However, in the 21st century, the monarchy needs to continue to adapt to society and be accessable to the people in the best way possible. The monarch is the Head of State and must show her/his concern and respect for the people, for without them, there is no monarchy.

Diana did not want to destroy her son's birthright. She wanted her son to come to a throne that would be easier to bear than it has been for the Queen or Charles for that matter when and if his time comes. Diana had great respect for the Queen and her devotion to service to her country. Diana may not have agreed or liked all of Her Majesty's opinions, but she respected her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:54 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Remember, during the Martin Bashir interview Diana said she thought Charles would be happier if he were to step aside. I think the implication was that she wanted William, or Harry, to be king.

I don't think Diana would have encouraged either of her sons to give up their right to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:55 PM
Alicky's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 580
I think Diana liked and respected the Queen too, but she had a funny way of showing it. She may have dropped in on Her Highness after swims at Buckingham and addressed her as Mama, but she still waged major media battles against her and her "f****** family." She did not understand or approve of Queen's priority towards the throne, towards public stability. During the War of the Waleses the Queen tried to play it as neutrally as possible, but Diana saw this as aloofness and a conspiracy against her, seeing (and portraying) the Queen as part of the problem.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, prince charles, prince of wales, 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
Reasons why you never want to be royal? bad_barbarella Royal Chit Chat 63 10-01-2011 12:48 PM




Popular Tags
abdication 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 genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 PM.

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]