Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death?

[Catherine J]

I've given this topic a lot of thought over the years.

My initial reaction, at the time of Diana's death, was rather alike to the reported response of Mother Theresa's (who was also on her own deathbed) when being told Diana died - she responded, if I recall correctly, (and I cannot provide a citation) along the lines of it was very sad but maybe it was for the best. These were not her exact words - I forget how they were formed - but the context was that if she was going to die, it was best that she died before she could have become ... unhappier / unwiser.

I've read it several times but cannot find it at the moment as I forget the actual wording and cannot remember the person quoted. It was not mean or vindictive at all - but I remember it summing up my feelings exactly.

I was astounded and disgusted by the outpouring of grief from newspapers/people that had been calling her names and casting aspersions on her character. I was disgusted that Mother's Teresa's death went virtually unnoticed because of Diana's death. I was profoundly sad that the English people chose to call out the Monarch on her response to it. My response, in a nutshell: How DARE they!

Did she handle it "appropriately"? I don't have a clue what "appropriate" might mean in this context. I do know that I think she handled it as *she* thought was appropriate - which was sufficient for me.

I am not a Diana fan, never was, and came to nearly "hate" her towards the end of her life. I saw her as a manipulative, petulant "me generation" selfish individual who brought a quality to the monarchy that made me less respectful of it. I mourned the loss of the "nobility" in the "royalty" and wished she would just shut the hell up with all her boo-hoo self pity and start acting, as one reporter so famously put it, "like a princess!". I was tired of her crap already.

So, I assumed that the Queen was similarly tired of her and angry at her for the damage done. Given this thought mode, the public baying at her door for a more overt show of grief, made me angry at the public and I just always assumed the Queen was exerting a sort of royal authority and dignity as a matter of setting precedents and establishing a cause and effect pattern, which I consider a smart move. The lesson: The Sovereign will do what the subjects need and the Sovereign will consider their needs, but the Sovereign is not a wind up doll that cries and laughs on demand. Even for Diana. Maybe even especially for Diana. Diana caused a lot of damage to the institution the Queen had spent all of her considerable life protecting.

I consider it a proof of her great strength of character that she stayed her course as long as she did, did was that necessary in the end and did it all with a straight face - which is more than Diana would have given her.

The question is less "Do I think the Queen acted appropriately" to which the answer is, as based above, "yes". The real question should be "Did the Commonwealth people act appropriately towards the Queen when Diana died?" to which the answer, as based above, is "no". Shame on us all. We forgot who stood by us and who didn't. We forgot who always did her duty and who didn't. We forgot who is noble and who wasn't. We forgot who walked the walk and who just talked the talk. Shame on us.

 

[olebabs]

Dear CathrineJ,

With all do respect, you can hardly fault Diana for what happened after her death. But to loose your life at the age of 36 in such a horrible way is always very shocking and a great tragedy. And I think that many people around the world suddently got a wake up call, that life is fragile even for royals.

Today the monarchs role is to be a uniting force, especially in a crisis. And to me it look like Britain was in a major crisis in the week following Dianas death. The boys were not orphaned, so the responsability of them was on Charles. Therefore I believe that had she given her tribute on the morning of Dianas death, she would have come across as a caring, loving grand mother and have expressed the need for privacy. Instead the came across as cold and insincere (This is my opinion) and forced against her will.
I actually believed her speech,and I think Diana and the Queen had great affection for each other, but the whole set up was wrong.

I'm certain that when the day comes Her Majesty will be mourned deeply, but she will have come to a natural closure of her life and therefore it is not tragic and she will not leave behind to underaged children. It can never be that shocking and unexpected.
.

 

[Catherine J]

Dear CathrineJ,

With all do respect, you can hardly fault Diana for what happened after her death. But to loose your life at the age of 36 in such a horrible way is always very shocking and a great tragedy. And I think that many people around the world suddently got a wake up call, that life is fragile even for royals.

I don't blame Diana for what happened after her death. I do, however, hold her responsible for what happened during her life.

Diana's death was a terrible tragedy. While I do not for one second believe she "deserved" to die, it seems that she was hell bent on self destruction and I, for one, did not find it as "shocking" as others did. Which is not to say I did not find it sad and tragic. I just did not feel very personally affected - to my mind she was a "come and gone" and was no longer a part of the royal family, much like the Duchess of York, her position as mother to the future king notwithstanding. My sense of loss was not remotely what it would have been were it a member of the royal family to whom I felt I owed my allegiance. To each his own response, I guess

Today the monarchs role is to be a uniting force, especially in a crisis. And to me it look like Britain was in a major crisis in the week following Dianas death. The boys were not orphaned, so the responsability of them was on Charles. Therefore I believe that had she given her tribute on the morning of Dianas death, she would have come across as a caring, loving grand mother and have expressed the need for privacy. Instead the came across as cold and insincere (This is my opinion) and forced against her will.
I actually believed her speech,and I think Diana and the Queen had great affection for each other, but the whole set up was wrong.

I'm certain that when the day comes Her Majesty will be mourned deeply, but she will have come to a natural closure of her life and therefore it is not tragic and she will not leave behind to underaged children. It can never be that shocking and unexpected.

Yes, I see your point.

However, I was one of those who felt the people were asking for something unreasonable and irrational and I felt angry that the Queen was browbeat into acting in a way that went against her natural instinct and her sense of duty. After all that Diana did to harm the institution (my opinion) it seemed to me that the Queen might find it insulting to have to give her honors that even her own Mother was not entitled to have (flag at half mast, etc.) after all that had happened. Whether the reports of her "affection" for Diana are true or not is anyone's guess as the Queen does not make such statements.

Tragic and terrible, yes - but the public wave of emotion feels a little (it did to me then and it does to many others now) like a case of mass irrational hysteria.

Diana - if nothing else, she is polarizing.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Daria_S]

So she should have left her grieving grandsons, who had just lost their mother, to play to the baying mob? The mob should have been ashamed of themselves making demands on the grandmother of the children of Diana. One person who would have been delighted that the Queen and the rest of the royal family put the boys first would have been Diana - who advocated exactly that attitude - that there were times when duty had to be put aside for family. What you are advocating is the exact opposite of what Diana would have wanted.

Wales behaved impeccably - he spoke up for the mother of his children and represented them to his mother.

Spencer should have been locked up for treason for that eulogy which was a blantant attack on his monarch.

I was horrified at the mob mentality of the British public but they were stirred up by the media who simply wanted to divert attention from their own role in Diana's death because if they did that then they would have to also point out to Diana's fans that they were also responsible for her death.

This was very well said indeed. I think Her Majesty acted appropriately at that time, because she wanted to give her grandsons a chance to mourn in private, and that was the right thing to do. Imagine, being 15 and 12, losing a beloved mother, and then having to go out and smile and nod while people express their sorrow. She understood that this was time to be with one's family, and not worry about the desires of the public (at least not right away). I feel that the entire family was pressured to play to the fiddle of the public and the British government.

Just my views, so please, no need to shoot me.

 

[COUNTESS]

They didn't have to go out and smile. Harry asked at the church servie, "are you sure mummy is dead", as, coldly, no metion of her name. If she was such a loving grandmother, protocol would have been a second thought. The family would have sat down and talked about what would happen. These boys adored their mother. It was, obviously, a shock for all. But the queen only thought of herself and protocol. Even Charles, knew the right thing to do and flew to Paris, aginst his mother's wishes.

 

[olebabs]

Cathrine J, I agree with you, that what the press and Tony Blair did to HM, was bullying and not very pretty. Yes it was mass histeria beyond belief. I certainly didn't want to seem to support that, it was however the situation. The only thing I ment to say was, had she reacted a bit sooner, this uglyness could well have been avoided.

Now prince Charles showed himself like a man, and got the respect of his people. At least after a while.

 

[Catherine J]

Now prince Charles showed himself like a man, and got the respect of his people. At least after a while.

Agreed. I gained immense respect for Charles over the whole business. I thought he put his shoulders back, stepped up and did his duty - as a father and as the future King. Ironically, I will say that it was at the point of Diana's funeral that I realized how much the whole marriage debacle had harmed him and the monarchy and that I began to have great sympathy for him as a human being and great hopes for him as a King.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

This discussion makes me sick. Get over it, girls. Let Diana lie in peace, and give the Queen a break. I'd like to know how well anyone of us would have done in the same incredibly difficult circumstances.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I still feel outraged by the public to dare to demand to see the poor boys in such a situation - would they want THEIR children be put through such an ordeal?

When the Queen opted for a privat funeral of Diana, I'm shure she thought also of the boys; for them that would have been much easier to bear than to go out greet people, walk behind her coffin and all the other things they had to perform.

It was the media who put people up to that frenzie ... My heart still bleeds for them, when these pictures are shown.

Will & Harry learnt a very hard lesson in these day's - they leant, that the mob only thinks of themselves - without compasion for others.

 

[COUNTESS]

I still feel outraged by the public to dare to demand to see the poor boys in such a situation - would they want THEIR children be put through such an ordeal?

When the Queen opted for a privat funeral of Diana, I'm shure she thought also of the boys; for them that would have been much easier to bear than to go out greet people, walk behind her coffin and all the other things they had to perform.

It was the media who put people up to that frenzie ... My heart still bleeds for them, when these pictures are shown.

Will & Harry learnt a very hard lesson in these day's - they leant, that the mob only thinks of themselves - without compasion for others.

She opted for a private funeral, because once again Diana was stealing the stage and she wasn't royal any longer. Actually, Harry and William have never referred to them as a "mob". They knew their mother was "loved" , I just used that word for lack of any other and to this day, I believe, from what they've said that gave them comfort. Life's kick, if Charles had died, there would have been no private funeral talk and the boys would have walked behind his coffin, too. It would just have been a different parent they were burying. No one would have spared them that. Unfortnately, when you get the "big bucks" you are no longer allowed the privicy of those at the bottom.

 

[Tyger]

I am so heartened by this discussion. Its good to see this being spoken about - and I agree very much with many of the previous posters.

I know this is hard for many fans of the Princess of Wales but that whole funeral of Diana was an embarrassment to watch - which I didn't watch as it happens, but as it is with news of this sort in our day one could not avoid seeing the image of the sea of flowers, see snippets of the funeral, and hear the vitriol in some of the interviews of the bystanders. Sadly, that was Diana's 'legacy' in the short term - and what a ghastly thing for her children to endure on top of grieving for their mother. To have such grief mingled with such an onslaught of hate.

I think the Queen did fine - handling something that was in so many ways inexplicable - she was true to who she is. In the end she maintained 'good form', maintained the polite veneer the British are famous for, or were famous for.

What remains as a striking impression of that time is the profound degree of rudeness directed at the Queen and the RF in general. Very ugly and very unpleasant to watch. In this Charles demonstrated that he is younger, understood more than the Queen about what was taking place and grasped what was needed. A good man.

 

[sirhon11234]

I don't remember William and Harry being forced to walk behind Diana's coffin. I remember reading somewhere that Phillip asked William if he wanted to walk behind the coffin and William decided to do it. Those boys exhibited strength and courage walking behind their mother's cortege. It seemed like they wanted to be with her till the end of the funeral.
I never agreed with public's anger towards the Queen. The public should've picked up on the media trying to shift blame from themselves on to the BRF. I will not though criticize the public for mourning the loss of the Princess but they should have only mourned her and not disrespect the queen.
IMO had she addressed the nation earlier on from Balmoral things might have been different.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nobody said this. She was not obliged to be CONSTANTLY out! She could come back to London WITH the boys, address to the people 5 minutes, and return back home WITH the boys! Do not say that staying in holidays she was CONSTANTLY with the boys!

She made a statement from Balmoral on the day it happened. She couldn't have done any more in London anyway.

Whether she was constantly with the boys is irrelevant - it was in her home that they were staying when the news broke.

Why should the boys have been uprooted just to satisfy the baying mob?

I don't remember William and Harry being forced to walk behind Diana's coffin. I remember reading somewhere that Phillip asked William if he wanted to walk behind the coffin and William decided to do it. Those boys exhibited strength and courage walking behind their mother's cortege. It seemed like they wanted to be with her till the end of the funeral.
I never agreed with public's anger towards the Queen. The public should've picked up on the media trying to shift blame from themselves on to the BRF. I will not though criticize the public for mourning the loss of the Princess but they should have only mourned her and not disrespect the queen.
IMO had she addressed the nation earlier on from Balmoral things might have been different.

She was also coming to terms with the death of a person she had known since she was a child - and probably grieving as well.

It was pure selfishness on the part of the public - and shows just how out of touch with what the royal family is the public had become. They were/are a family with feelings for each other but because of the way Diana presented them the public prefer to think that that isn't the case and see them as cardboard cutouts - without feelings or emotions.

Today the monarchs role is to be a uniting force, especially in a crisis. And to me it look like Britain was in a major crisis in the week following Dianas death. The boys were not orphaned, so the responsability of them was on Charles. Therefore I believe that had she given her tribute on the morning of Dianas death, she would have come across as a caring, loving grand mother and have expressed the need for privacy. Instead the came across as cold and insincere (This is my opinion) and forced against her will.

To do the speech then wouldn't have been possible as it had to be written, proof-read and even approved by the PM (the only speech the Queen can give without official approval is the Christmas message).

You don't write a proper speech in a few hours - they take a lot of time to compose and no doubt she also rehearsed it a number of times before delivering it.

 

[sirhon11234]

I know she issued a statement as soon as the news broke; and as Diana died within the early hours I agree the Queen couldn't have done more.
But within a day or two after Diana's death, would it have been difficult for her PR advisors to organize an address to the nation from Balmoral?
I'm wondering if this was done, then the media wouldn't have had a leg to stand on to shift blame.

 

[olebabs]

Agreed Sirhon11234.

I just re-read the Queens tribute to Diana and it is actually very touching. I still maintain that the circumstances under which it was delivered seemed forced and insincere. But to witness the way she was treated by the media was disgusting. I remember reading that the palace security feared for her life upon returning to London, based on the media publishings, but that turned out to be rubbish. None of the thousands of people treated her with nothing but respect.

Yes she made huge mistakes, but as far as I'm concerned she came out strengthend. And that commands my respect.

@Countess: I am rather certain, that Diana did not kill herself in order to stell the limelight. She was still a member of the royal family and therefore entitled to the same honours.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I know she issued a statement as soon as the news broke; and as Diana died within the early hours I agree the Queen couldn't have done more.
But within a day or two after Diana's death, would it have been difficult for her PR advisors to organize an address to the nation from Balmoral?
I'm wondering if this was done the media wouldn't have had a leg to stand on to shift blame.

It takes a lot of time to write and prepare a speech and why should she have done so?

She was perfectly correct in doing what Diana would have wanted the boys' family to do - look after them - it is what Diana would have done.

Some other poster mentioned that if it had been Charles who had died the situation would have been different - no one would have expected the Queen to make a public statement (which she didn't do when either her sister or mother died) but Diana would have been immediately with her sons to take care of them - Diana would have rejoiced in the way the royal family closed ranks to take care of the boys.

I remember when they did return to London and were looking at the flowers outside BP and someone in the crowd called out 'You take care of those boys now' and Philip - as only Philip could - replied 'What do you think we have been doing?' It also showed how the royal family felt about the calls for them to leave Balmoral to satisfy the baying mob who simply wanted to see them in sackcloth and ashes for a woman most of the public had never met rather than consider the feelings of those who actually knew and loved her personally.

Personally I was disgusted at the attitude of the public and the media - who simply wanted their pound of flesh. One word sums up the public that week - selfish.

 

[Tyger]

It was pure selfishness on the part of the public - and shows just how out of touch with what the royal family is the public had become. They were/are a family with feelings for each other but because of the way Diana presented them the public prefer to think that that isn't the case and see them as cardboard cutouts - without feelings or emotions.

Exactly. Why Diana's 'spin' gained such credibiiity still puzzles me - is there a thread that discusses this aspect? In an Anthropological/Sociological context, why did smears that Diana engaged in take hold in such a profound way? To the extent that (as someone mentioned 'the baying mob') people would participate in a 'lynching' of the RF without second thoughts.

The experience of the Queen must have been like the world turned upside down. Disorienting, to say the least.

 

[bethaliz6894]

i honesly thought the queen did a very nice job handling what had to be a horrible situation. Diana died tragicly. she had to comfort a county, a world, her family and friends and herself. that has to be unreal for anyone. when you have no time to process the death of someone you just react, as if on impulse.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Actually, the Queen has spent her whole life thinking of the UK and the Commonwealth. On this occasion, when she acted as a loving grandmother in an attempt to protect her grandsons from the publicity that would occur on their return to London, she was criticized needlessly. I don't think she's had much time to think of herself, honestly.

But the queen only thought of herself and protocol. Even Charles, knew the right thing to do and flew to Paris, aginst his mother's wishes.

Exactly. And because of the sentimentality of our world today, people equate being undemonstrative with not caring. In the past, not falling apart in public was evidence of inner strength. Now it's seen as evidence of not caring.

They were/are a family with feelings for each other but because of the way Diana presented them the public prefer to think that that isn't the case and see them as cardboard cutouts - without feelings or emotions.

In all serious, I think that part of her appeal was her big blue eyes. Even when she was a mature woman, she had that child-like feature. Big eyes stir something protective in us, which is why we go "awww" when we see babies, small children, and infant animals. Maybe you could start a thread, Tyger. I'd certainly participate.

Exactly. Why Diana's 'spin' gained such credibiiity still puzzles me - is there a thread that discusses this aspect?

 

[COUNTESS]

Philip took them shooting. Touching way to help children get over the loss of their mother. They were all, except Charles, and even to him some degree, worried how they would look. They got bad advice, until Blair stepped in. It doesn't take much to exude warmth. Sorry, I am wrong., You have to have warmth. The "tribute", was insincere and forced. Their presence at the funeral was the same. There is a difference between sentimental and sensitive. They were neither. They didn't like her. That is okay. You have a right to your opinion. They didn't have to fall apart. They didn't. They don't have that capability. All they had to do was acknowledge an event of, at that time, shocking proportion. "Polite veneer", someone here wrote. Veneer, a cheap covering for inferior products. It costs very little to be warm if you can feel human compassion. These were the people who support her. Now, they have become to some a "mob". How distasteful.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She could come back to London WITH the boys, address to the people 5 minutes, and return back home WITH the boys! Do not say that staying in holidays she was CONSTANTLY with the boys!

Then she would have spent a lot of money, which she would have been criticized for. HM doesn't travel alone.

She opted for a private funeral, because once again Diana was stealing the stage and she wasn't royal any longer.

I expect that Earl Spencer, as head of the Spencer family, would have wanted a private funeral as well and wanted to mourn his sister with his remaining family and without the whole world looking on.

 

[COUNTESS]

I expect that Earl Spencer, as head of the Spencer family, would have wanted a private funeral as well and wanted to mourn his sister with his remaining family and without the whole world looking on.

I don't know. He was angry and his eulogy was too biting, so I am not sure how he felt. She was a public figure. As I said, if Charlesd had died, the same type of funeral would have taken place, without the mourning. He was not popular, at that time. By the way, even though they were minors, they were her next of kin, not the Earl Spencer. I don't know if anyone consulted William. Yes, he was young, but not a baby.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Philip took them shooting as a way to keep things normal - something that people try to do when mourning - it helps. They were also doing something they enjoyed - yes the princes enjoy killing things - they often go shooting today remember.

The royals that I have meet - the Queen and Charles are extremely warm people - they just don't show it to all and sundry.

The people who were Diana's supporters were manipulated by the press to turn away from who was responsible for her death. The first responses by the public was to blame the press but that was quickly turned against the royal family - the alternative for the press was for the mob to turn on them. The press had one other alternative - that was to put the blame where it truly lies - with the very people who were so publicly crying in the streets and carrying on in such a distasteful manner - they were the ones that killed her but the press also knew if they did that then the public wouldn't buy their products any more - let's attack the family that Diana had come to despise and attempt to destroy. The press knew that the mob would turn on them so they turned their attention elsewhere - easy to do with mobs - it is how riots etc start - and there was that potential that week for that to happen.

 

[Catherine J]

This discussion makes me sick. Get over it, girls. Let Diana lie in peace, and give the Queen a break. I'd like to know how well anyone of us would have done in the same incredibly difficult circumstances.

Diana was the Princess of Wales and is the mother of the second in line to the throne. She has become a part of history, by her own choice, and does not get to "rest in peace" in the context you seem to mean it.

I am, however, inclined to give the Queen a break. That said, discussions of this nature are going to go on a lot longer than either you or I.

 

[camelot23ca]

Actually, the Queen has spent her whole life thinking of the UK and the Commonwealth. On this occasion, when she acted as a loving grandmother in an attempt to protect her grandsons from the publicity that would occur on their return to London, she was criticized needlessly. I don't think she's had much time to think of herself, honestly.

I thought about this, as well. The Queen in the past has been criticized for putting duty to the crown and the public above family concerns with her own children. Then when she put the wellbeing of her grandsons above the public's wishes after Diana's death she was criticized for that, as well.
IMO, many of the people, (and the media), criticizing The Queen in both of the above scenarios don't do so out of any real concern for the monarchy or members of the royal family but rather out of a sense of thwarted entertainment when The Queen and other members of the royal family refuse to act like puppets and put on a show.
The more time that passes, the more I personally think it's a good thing that QEII refused to become a part of the spasm of mass hysteria that surrounded Diana's death.

 

[Mermaid1962]

He would have been mourned, and publicly. People have a way of mourning more over the death of someone young (under 50 is "young" these days) and someone who's known. The people who benefited from Charles' charities or who met him and found him personable and friendly would have mourned him. The people who were expecting him to be their king one day would have mourned him. His sons, parents, and siblings would have been just as devastated by his death. "Popularity" comes and goes; but when someone dies, people often--even for just a little while--remember the good things about a person and let the difficulties and scandals rest. What is sometimes forgotten is that Diana's reputation was dropping before she died; but when she was killed so brutally and suddenly, all that was forgotten for awhile.

As I said, if Charlesd had died, the same type of funeral would have taken place, without the mourning.

 

[olebabs]

Well 36 is young. You said it yourself Mermaid1962, that popularity goes up and down. I think that had she had a chance to live, and her relationship with Charles had found a stable ground, they both would have been forgiven, that way Charles has been.
Of course Charles will be mourned, but hopefully he gets to go in his sleep and old man and therefore it will not be such a shock.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Just for clarification, olebabs, I was suggesting what the reaction would have been like had Charles been the one who died in the summer of 1997.

Well 36 is young...
Of course Charles will be mourned, but hopefully he gets to go in his sleep and old man and therefore it will not be such a shock.

 

[olebabs]

I know

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I don't think it was fair that the wailing masses put The Queen and The Royal Family through all that vitriol. Diana harmed their name, and a public funeral was not in the Princes' best interests. That said, the flag, the speech, and the state funeral were needed in light of the campaign against The RF. The mob weren't going to calm down until they got their circus. The Royals did what as needed, and I have nothing but respect and sympathy for them. They kept face during an extremely difficult time.