The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   What if things had been different? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/what-if-things-had-been-different-6982.html)

Duchess 08-22-2005 04:53 PM

What if things had been different?
 
Got this question from another board and thought it was really interesting. What if it had been Charles that was killed and not Diana. What do you think Diana's role would be today? Do you think she would be treated differently by the RF? What about her romantic interests?

Reina 08-22-2005 05:13 PM

Well I think Diana's role woudl be augmented esp. since William woudl be first in line to the throne. I think that would mean that she would have to stop some of her relationships. She woudl probably get the HRH status back. However I don't think she would get as much power as Queen Victoria's mom-the Duchess of Kent-had. I think William and HArry would be pushed into royal duties way earlier.

Elspeth 08-22-2005 05:18 PM

If Charles had died while they were still married, she'd never have lost the HRH. As to what would have happened if he'd died after their divorce, I assume the Queen would have had some major input into William and Harry's upbringing; I'm sure she wouldn't have just sat back and let Diana do whatever she wanted.

lashinka2002 08-22-2005 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
If Charles had died while they were still married, she'd never have lost the HRH. As to what would have happened if he'd died after their divorce, I assume the Queen would have had some major input into William and Harry's upbringing; I'm sure she wouldn't have just sat back and let Diana do whatever she wanted.

This is very interesting. If Charles had died in 1997 instead of Diana, wouldn't that leave diana full custody? In the real world that may happen but in the royal world would Granny Queen Elizabeth have any sort of custodial rights? Doesn't this get taken care of in some sort of pre agreement before the wedding - I mean in reagards to children of the crown? I'm hoping that Diana and the Queen would have worked together for Williams future & the future of the Monarchy but I don't think that either woman would have sat back and let the other walk all over them. They probably would have needed a mediator of some sort, at least in the begining. I do think Diana may have taken the HRH back as the queen did offer it to her at an earlier time so I've heard. Goodness things would certainly be different wouldn't they?

Frothy 08-22-2005 06:24 PM

Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

Alicky 08-22-2005 06:32 PM

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.

A.C.C. 08-22-2005 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy
Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

Actually, it was said on a television program that The Queen did have gaurdianship rights, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. I mean, if granny is The Queen, things might be a little different than regular circumstances.

Alicky 08-22-2005 06:37 PM

I just remember arguing with someone over something, we got into the custody deal and I didn't belive it, and he quoted some act or something. Mine's not too accurate either lol!

Alicky 08-22-2005 06:38 PM

I don't think it's a far-fetched idea though.

iowabelle 08-22-2005 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy
Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

I disagree, Frothy. The Queen still exercises the ultimate power over her grandchildren, although it's not obvious to us (and she doesn't usually exercise it). For example, royal children cannot be taken out of the country without the Sovereign's permission.

I am sure that Diana would have become more powerful as the surviving parent of the royal heirs, but any major decisions regarding the boys would have been made by the Queen in consultation with others, including Diana (and probably the Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury).

In this case royal children aren't like other children.

portergirl 08-22-2005 08:04 PM

They'd have blamed Diana
 
I know this will come off as cynical to some people, because that's actually how I feel -- but I believe the Queen and Prince Philip, and perhaps others in the Royal Family and the press would somehow, some way, have blamed Diana. I know there are those who who blame Charles for the accident of Diana, saying he and the Queen, Philip, etc. plotted her murder. I am one who believes it was a tragic accident with Diana. So I don't mean I think people would have thought Diana planned Charle's murder. But I think they would have thought Diana caused emotional turmoil, and I don't know what, because it's too far-fetched to understand. But they blamed Diana for everything when she was alive, tried to get people to think she was unbalanced. So they'd have blamed her somehow. And I don't think she'd have gotten her title back. I don't think she'd have had full custody or say-so in raising the boys. I think nothing would have changed. Oddly enough, I think Charles towards the end actually had some feelings (not love, but kindness) for Diana and once he was gone I don't think the rest of the Family would have cared about her at all. The boys would have been much better off because I think she was the best part of their lives and kept them human, and no children should have to lose their mother when they're so young, so for the sake of the boys I think things would have been better. And certainly Diana was the shining light in the Royal Family, so there would have been continued appreciation for all things Royal. But sadly, otherwise, I don't think it would have helped things or changed things at all. Except Camilla would have been without the love of her life!! What an intriguing thread, though!

Alicky 08-22-2005 08:29 PM

So the boys would be better off with a dead Charles than a dead Diana? It's a no-win situation either way obviously, but putting like that I think is very cold.

ysbel 08-22-2005 08:33 PM

I thought of something similar when Charles got in that avalanche a few years ago and one of his friends died.

What if Charles and his sons had been on that mountain in Austria in 1988 when the avalanche hit and none had survived? As it was, the avalanche took one life and almost killed another.

I think losing her sons would have destroyed Diana but I wonder what would have happened to the Royal Family if they had lost Charles, William, and Harry in 1988? Would Andrew have taken the title of Prince of Wales? Would pressures would have been on Sarah to shape up? Pressures to have a son?

Charles was faulted for not taking more care before that group had gone on the hill. Would he have been blamed posthumously for recklessly endangering his son's lives?

Elspeth 08-22-2005 09:06 PM

I think the ski run they were on was an expert one; he wouldn't have had the two boys along. I gather it's possible that both Diana and Fergie might have been there but Fergie, who was pregnant, had had a fall that morning and was resting in the afternoon, and Diana stayed with her.

What would have happened if both Charles and Diana had been killed doesn't bear thinking about; Prince Harry was only three at the time.

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.

tiaraprin 08-23-2005 01:11 AM

I don't want to get into this one!!
 
Oh Lord, this thread is asking for trouble in my opinion. I am not going to venture one. This could turn into a war of Diana Supporters VS Charles Supporters. Unless something awful is said about Diana, I am not saying a word!

Elspeth 08-23-2005 01:12 AM

Yes, I must admit I was a bit worried about how the thread might turn out, but so far people seem to be being sensible.

tiaraprin 08-23-2005 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Yes, I must admit I was a bit worried about how the thread might turn out, but so far people seem to be being sensible.

Isn't it scary Elspeth that I act more like a moderator sometimes???:p :eek: :p :eek:

Feberin 08-23-2005 01:31 AM

Had Charles died instead of Diana things would have become differant. I think Charles after he died would have been looked back on more fondly and many of his mistakes forgotten. I think Diana and the Queen would frequently be at odds over the boys and Diana would have been held responsible for a lot of the marital problems. I don't think Diana would be welcomed back to the royal family and recieve HRH again. In fact I think their relationship would get worse since with William being the heir apparent the Queen would develop much mroe percise ideas as to how he should be raised.

Had Charles died years before in 1988 then I think the truth about Charles and Diana's ill matched marriage would have never completely come to light. And Charles would be remembered in a very positive light. Diana may then have managed to have a better relationship with the royal family.

Alicky 08-23-2005 07:20 AM

Would William then be bumped up to Prince of Wales?

Warren 08-23-2005 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alicky
Would William then be bumped up to Prince of Wales?

Not immediately, but after a suitable interval it would be appropriate. The timing would be at The Queen's discretion.
.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises