What if things had been different? Alternate History

[Mika]

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.

 

[tiaraprin]

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!!

 

[Frothy]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[Duchess]

you're right iowabelle, this question came from another board i go to but i thought it was a really interesting question.

 

[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.

 

[tiaraprin]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[Alicky]

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.

 

[tiaraprin]

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.

The term "F***ing Family" was said in a private conversation that was not meant for public consumption. We have no clue what The Queen, Charles, or the rest of the Royal Family have said in conversations that were never recorded.

However, we do know how Charles wishes to be re-incarnated!!!

 

[Alexandria]

The term "F***ing Family" was said in a private conversation that was not meant for public consumption. We have no clue what The Queen, Charles, or the rest of the Royal Family have said in conversations that were never recorded.

I think that a lot of what was said by both Diana and Charles, as well as their associates, and leaked to the press were from private conversations and never intended for public consumption. But the fact is Diana said it and it's out there and it's forever part of what she's said and done in her lifetime, mixed in with the good things.

Comments like Charles wishing to be Camilla's tampon were never intended for public consumption either, but it's still very much a part of Charles and Camilla's story.

 

[Panther2000]

.

I think that by 1988 Diana and Charles were already on seriously bad terms, and I've often wondered if she wished he'd died in that avalanche so that she could play the grieving widow and then go on with her life with the boys. It seems to me that she might have smothered them a bit, since she seemed to be using them to get the love that she wasn't getting from Charles and his family, but who knows how things would have turned out.

I don't think so. Play the grieving widow. But, what is the difference than charles PLAYING the grieving widower.

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't think so. Play the grieving widow. But, what is the difference than charles PLAYING the grieving widower.

AMEN Panther!!!!!! Point well taken!! It would be hypocritical on either's part!!

 

[Alicky]

When has Charles played the grieving widower? I know he went to the funeral, but aside from that? I don't see how he's played to this.

 

[Panther2000]

AMEN Panther!!!!!! Point well taken!! It would be hypocritical on either's part!!

That is how I see it. Diana Bashers I just don't get them. The woman is dead & not doing anything to anyone & people still feel the need to try to hurt her. In the Famous words of Smegol/gollum

What has she ever done to them. NOTHING.


I guess it would be more believeable if Charles & the royal family were seen crying( when they never showed any real emotions in public) meanwhile Everyone & their mother know that Diana never had a problem showing people how she feels.

I would believe diana tears over charles. Not a bash to charles. but he was brought up to suck it up & a stiff uppper lip.

 

[Alicky]

The term "F***ing Family" was said in a private conversation that was not meant for public consumption.

But it's pretty obvious that she wasn't feeling a whole lotta love and respect at the moment lol!

 

[tiaraprin]

But it's pretty obvious that she wasn't feeling a whole lotta love and respect at the moment lol!

However, Diana did fall in love with her husband (as she understood love to be). Did Charles ever love her?? Words such as "whatever in love means" comes to mind. . . . .

At the very most, he had a passing affection for her.

 

[Alicky]

I think they both thought they loved each other, or thought that love would eventually grow, but they both obviously made a big mistake. They were so totally different, hardly knew each other, and had such different interests, personalities and lives.

 

[Panther2000]

However, Diana did fall in love with her husband (as she understood love to be). Did Charles ever love her?? Words such as "whatever in love means" comes to mind. . . . .

At the very most, he had a passing affection for her.

HELLO, standing ovation for that one. She had no problem saying for feeling love( or what she may have thought what love was. She was after all not far removed from still being a child). I think that she believed in fairytales.

Frankly, I think that anyone marrying under the age of at least 25 now a days is asking for trouble. they have no time really to be on their own & to see the world for what it is.

But, I guess when you MUST HAVE A VIRGIN bride to have kids. Well, I guess a young unknowing is the way to go. I just gess that they did not think that, that bride would become more popular & LOVED world wide more than just about everyone ( except the Queen MUM) in the royal family who would learn stop taking it & fight back. I guess that is what some don't like. That she stopped being the door matt that everyone walked all over.

 

[tiaraprin]

HELLO, standing ovation for that one. She had no problem saying for feeling love( or what she may have thought what love was. She was after all not far removed from still being a child). I think that she believed in fairytales.

Frankly, I think that anyone marrying under the age of at least 25 now a days is asking for trouble. they have no time really to be on their own & to see the world for what it is.

But, I guess when you MUST HAVE A VIRGIN bride to have kids. Well, I guess a young unknowing is the way to go. I just gess that they did not think that, that bride would become more popular & LOVED world wide more than just about everyone ( except the Queen MUM) in the royal family who would learn stop taking it & fight back. I guess that is what some don't like. That she stopped being the door matt that everyone walked all over.

While I agree with you Panther, others are going to be angry at this post.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think so. Play the grieving widow. But, what is the difference than charles PLAYING the grieving widower.

The difference is that at the time of the skiing accident, Charles and Diana were at the stage where they were beginning to not be able to stand the sight of each other. Having him die in a tragic accident, leaving her alone to raise her boys as Spencers, would have been the answer to her prayers.

By the time of her death - in fact by the time of their divorce - they were getting along fairly well as friends. She said so herself to several people, who have reported it in their books and articles. Had Charles been the one who had died in 1997, she would probably have been genuinely sad. If he'd died in the avalanche, I'm very sure she wouldn't have been. At the time she died, they were both free to have relationships with other people, so the presence of the other ex-spouse wasn't that big a deal in that respect.

If anybody thinks she would have been genuinely distressed if he'd died in the avalanche, or that she'd have done anything other than to pretend to be terribly upset, I think they're being unrealistic. By 1997, they both had a somewhat different outlook and I think that if either of them had died, the other would have been sincerely sad.

 

[Alicky]

I agree. And she would have played (overplayed I'm sure) the role of the grieving widow to the tens.

 

[una]

I think Diana would have been glad to have Charles out of her way, so that she could step into his shoes. At the time of the separation, she is quoted as saying "I would hope that my husband would go off, go away with his lady, then leave me and the children to carry the Wales name through to the time that William ascends the throne."
In the panorama interview, she hinted at something similar when she doubted that Charles could adapt to the restrictions of being king, and she wished he might find peace of mind "and from that follows other things" (i.e. he might give up his place in the succession?). Simone Simmons has her fantasizing about being consort to her son.

 

[love_cc]

I think Diana loves Charles when they two got married but Charles did not.Charles thought he would try to love Diana/learn to love Diana for the sake of their marriage /monarchy. However Diana's love for Charles was not as deep as she thought or she was too young to understand what love means. The real Love means devotion, sacrifice and endurance. Therefore Diana was unable to sacrifice her life for Charles and she want her happiness first.She has an ideal Charles in her mind and the real Charles did not fit in. So she become angry and blamed Charles for everything. Anyway Charles should marry a more matured woman not a girl. A girl was not his type.

 

[tiaraprin]

In the panorama interview, she hinted at something similar when she doubted that Charles could adapt to the restrictions of being king, and she wished he might find peace of mind "and from that follows other things" (i.e. he might give up his place in the succession?). Simone Simmons has her fantasizing about being consort to her son.

I would not take as gospel what Simone Simmons says. She is just another in a long line of people profiting from Diana's death and legacy.

It is funny how people will look to the scandal mongers to prove their points about Diana being bad, then condemn those same sources when the criticize Charles.

 

[Skydragon]

That


I guess it would be more believeable if Charles & the royal family were seen crying( when they never showed any real emotions in public) .

No one saw William or Harry crying, are you saying that because you did not see them cry, they didn't care.

The British are not normally prone to public displays of grief or emotion of any sort, most of us still believe in 'the stiff upper lip' What you saw at Kensington Palace was mass hysteria, whipped up by the media.

I believe Charles did grieve for Diana, the mother of his sons, as I believe that all the Royals grieved for the loss of a life.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

The British are not normally prone to public displays of grief or emotion of any sort, most of us still believe in 'the stiff upper lip' What you saw at Kensington Palace was mass hysteria, whipped up by the media.

The British usually exercise a little dignity. As you rightly say, it was mass hysteria and I see it as one of the darkest days in English life. What would Queen Mary have said? People shrieking and bawling when they didn't know the woman. No dignity, no self-control and a total lack of respect for manners, authority and tradition. Ridiculous.

 

[Alicky]

It is funny how people will look to the scandal mongers to prove their points about Diana being bad, then condemn those same sources when the criticize Charles.

I got that impression before Simone ever wrote her book, and I don't think anyone is trying to say that Diana was a just plain "bad" person. Humans are pretty complex.

People shrieking and bawling when they didn't know the woman. No dignity, no self-control and a total lack of respect for manners, authority and tradition. Ridiculous.

I have to agree. I used to think it was touching, but looking back I too think it seems rather hysterical and bizarre.

 

[tiaraprin]

The British usually exercise a little dignity. As you rightly say, it was mass hysteria and I see it as one of the darkest days in English life. What would Queen Mary have said? People shrieking and bawling when they didn't know the woman. No dignity, no self-control and a total lack of respect for manners, authority and tradition. Ridiculous.

Perhaps the British public really loved Diana so much that they let go of their "constraint". I think it demonstrates how beloved Diana was that everyone let the constraint slip. One cannot be an emotional robot at all times, especially if something touches one deeply.