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

[Osipi]

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.

Reading this suggestion put me in mind of perhaps a better comparison to put the mass hysteria of the public more into focus. We take 2 former members of the BRF with the same standing just about. Diana and Captain Mark Phillips, Anne's first husband. Only difference is that Diana's sons were the heir and the spare to Charles. Both were parents of the Queen's grandchildren. Should it have been that Mark had been the one to die in a horrid crash, I really doubt that there would be anything close to that almost state like funeral that was accorded Diana and the media coverage perhaps wouldn't have made worldwide news. Then again, Anne and Mark's relationship and divorce were not highly publicized by the media as the War of the Wales and their divorce. it boils down to public popularity.

In this perspective we really see how much the death of Diana was a time of extreme chaos. When Diana died so suddenly, there really was no former set precedent of how things were handled. Blame the media, blame the PM Blair for fueling "the people's princess" image or blame it on a full moon even but to put HM at fault in this situation is to be totally unrealistic.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I think Sarah would be a better comparrison. Unlike Captain Phillips, she was officially a member of The Royal Family. She is also better known than Mark. I believe that if she had suddenly died, the reaction would've been similar to what happened with Diana, albeit not as strong.

That all said, I agree enitrely that Her Majesty was in no way at fault. It was a combination of Diana's spin, Blair's "People's Princess" line (don't start me on it), and the Media (don't start me on what they did either) It was basically selfishness that bred more selfishness.

 

[Nice Nofret]

SActually, 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.

how could they say anything else .. they would fall from grace for many people, if they would say, what their real feelings are (not that I know them - but as they are very guarded and work hard to keep their private life ... well private ... ).


Philip taking the boys shooting ... beeing outdoors und walking is a very good way to come to terms with greef (i'm not one for shooting I couldn't - but they grew up like that - its quite diffrent for them)


For me the culpits of the masshysteria are quit easy to see - the Media had to shift the blame somewhere and of course the always populistic Blair .. what a wonderfull situation for him to be in the limelight .. and the BRF to pay the bill

and the same goes for Charly Spencer - can't stand that man, he who had some major fallouts with his sister but to shift all the blame to the BRF ... - he did not think of his nephews in all this.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I don't think The Earl Spencer contributed to the collective nervous breakdown (he didn't have to), but I agree that he certainly appreciated it. He hoped that a member of The RF would be caught pouting or smiling, and he attacked them without restraint in his eulogy. He didn't care how his Nephews felt about being paraded out like that as long as he was sharing the screen with them, and being watched by millions. He didn't care how their paternal relatives felt about his words as long as they were made to look like the baddies. He didn't care how selfishly the creeps outside the palace were acting as long as they were worshipping his Sister. In short, he wanted to come out the hero, and he didn't care how far this was from reality. I'm sorry to but the Man irritates me.

 

[Warren]

Posts of no relevance to the thread topic have been removed.

 

[Renata4711]

Does he see himself as some kind of custodian of his sister's last resting place?

If yes, then he is not really a fit person to do so.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I think the Queen acted fine after Diana's death. Her main concern was for her grandchildren who just lost their mother. Not for a society obsessed with tabloids and pretty pictures who just lost their Star Queen.
I also have to say that I still have a hard time watching those pictures and videos of Prince William and Harry having to shake hands with the mob and putting their grief on display while looking at the flowers and cards. I really remember one image where William had a forced smile on his face while shaking hands with the crowd. His mother was just killed, he probably felt she was murdered, yet he has to put on a show for the public!

 

[Renata4711]

Xenia, like you, I can still see the images in my mind's eye....

But I'm glad that the boys have grown up, and grown out of all those traumas of the past.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

A question about the "People's Princess" situation. Is it accurate to blame Tony Blair for the hoopla over that? Wasn't he just trying to eulogize a woman who had just died, and the media took a snippet of his words and ran with it?

 

[nascarlucy]

I don't think the royals knew what exactly to do when Diana died. This was something that they had never experienced before. They knew that she was well loved but I don't think they realized how well loved she was. Much more so that perhaps they would have thought. She was probably more loved than any other royal at the time. If there hadn't been all of this outpouring of love towards Diana, it would have been interesting how the funeral would have been handled, which would have been different.

 

[bethaliz6894]

I don't think the royals knew what exactly to do when Diana died. This was something that they had never experienced before. They knew that she was well loved but I don't think they realized how well loved she was. Much more so that perhaps they would have thought. She was probably more loved than any other royal at the time. If there hadn't been all of this outpouring of love towards Diana, it would have been interesting how the funeral would have been handled, which would have been different.

i think this was very well said.

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't think the royals knew what exactly to do when Diana died. This was something that they had never experienced before. They knew that she was well loved but I don't think they realized how well loved she was. Much more so that perhaps they would have thought. She was probably more loved than any other royal at the time. If there hadn't been all of this outpouring of love towards Diana, it would have been interesting how the funeral would have been handled, which would have been different.

You are right. I think they thought that they were supreme and found out they were not. It was a time to find out that the crowd didn't value them, over ordinary people, as demi-gods. It changed things, dramatically. They were no longer holy.

 

[Tyger]

I don't think the royals knew what exactly to do when Diana died. This was something that they had never experienced before. They knew that she was well loved but I don't think they realized how well loved she was. Much more so that perhaps they would have thought. She was probably more loved than any other royal at the time. If there hadn't been all of this outpouring of love towards Diana, it would have been interesting how the funeral would have been handled, which would have been different.

They knew she was loved but they did not realize how much hate she had successfully generated against the BRF. That was the stunner.

The Queen did not know how successful Diana's anger and even spite towards the BRF had seeped into the general population towards the whole of the BRF - even to her. Up to that moment she could assume it was a 'Charles thing' - not impacting her, something outside her sphere in a way - not that she was a 'demi-god' or 'holy' - I don't think the Queen has ever been foolish as to think that of herself or her family - but I think she accepted that she would be respected - and what was happening was not respectful towards her.

But what we saw was not love IMO - but a kind of mass psychosis - it was rage and hate and it was not pretty. To this day - as an observer - I am puzzled by it - and horrified. I think the Queen was likely stunned as well that she would find herself being turned against on the 'say-so' - in a manner of speaking - of this young woman.

Makes me realize why there were wars in the past regarding succession and gave a modern insight into the intrigues of the past when it came to loyalties to the King's Court or to the Queen's Court - like in 'The Tudors'. Makes me thrilled I don't live under a monarchy!

 

[Mermaid1962]

Since when have the BRF considered themselves demi-gods? I can't remember a time in British History when the Kings and Queens believed that about themselves. They believed that they reigned as servants of God, certainly--but not as being divine themselves. And Kings of Queens haven't been "supreme" since the Restoration. Nor were they seen as holy.

However, I have a video made after Diana's death which says, and I quote, "SHE was a demi-goddess."

You are right. I think they thought that they were supreme and found out they were not. It was a time to find out that the crowd didn't value them, over ordinary people, as demi-gods. It changed things, dramatically. They were no longer holy.

 

[Renata4711]

Mermaid, I agree with you - though it is possible that previous monarchs may well have forgotten that they are not holy beings.
The King Arthur / Avalon myth is still alive in the British psyche !

On the other side of that coin, things have changed to such an extent that the Royals are in the process of becoming media personalities (or maybe are already?)

I'm divided between regarding the Royals as, on one side, a kind of bulwark against people like Sarkozy ('implied' kingship !), and - on the other side - an over-familiar version of kingship as in Emanuele Filiberto and his TV appearances.

 

[expat]

They knew she was loved but they did not realize how much hate she had successfully generated against the BRF. That was the stunner.

The Queen did not know how successful Diana's anger and even spite towards the BRF had seeped into the general population towards the whole of the BRF - even to her. Up to that moment she could assume it was a 'Charles thing' - not impacting her, something outside her sphere in a way - not that she was a 'demi-god' or 'holy' - I don't think the Queen has ever been foolish as to think that of herself or her family - but I think she accepted that she would be respected - and what was happening was not respectful towards her.

But what we saw was not love IMO - but a kind of mass psychosis - it was rage and hate and it was not pretty. To this day - as an observer - I am puzzled by it - and horrified. I think the Queen was likely stunned as well that she would find herself being turned against on the 'say-so' - in a manner of speaking - of this young woman.

Makes me realize why there were wars in the past regarding succession and gave a modern insight into the intrigues of the past when it came to loyalties to the King's Court or to the Queen's Court - like in 'The Tudors'. Makes me thrilled I don't live under a monarchy!

This is the first time I have seen written here that Princess Diana created spite against the BRF and was successful, and that must have stunned them all especially the Queen who has always been so popular.
Lovedis a strong word (not to say ridiculous) for a woman who only her family and close friends and collaborators knew, one can't love a person for seeing her pretty picture in the newspaper. One can feel sorrow for someone so young and pretty dying and leaving two small boys. I feel just as much sorrow for Dodi Fayed, too young to die and in such a tragic way.
I do not admire mass hysteria and as far as Kings of England believing they were demi-gods, let us just mention Henry VIII who despite his rather unfeeling way of dealing with unwanted women, was a good King who thought that everything he did was for the good of HIS people and definitely thought he could do no wrong even taking over the church in his country..

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think there is a difference between believing they were chose by God and believing they were/are a god or demi-god.

In the past the British/English/Scottish monarchs definitely believed they were put into that position by the will of God but they never believed that they were God. The exact opposite in fact - that they were servants of God but...also only answerable to God.

The present Queen, I am sure, does believe that she was put into this position by God - but she is also aware that she is answerable to others as well - so the situation has changed. This isn't the same belief as Charles I had by the way but a belief based on the Christian belief that God is in control of the big decisions and we control the smaller ones e.g. God decided who my parents would be but I decided to be a teacher - in that way God decided that Elizabeth would have Bertie and Elizabeth as her parents but she decided what sort of Queen she would be when put into the position of being the Queen. This is probably badly explained but I can't think of how to word it differently.

 

[Renata4711]

"Rather unfeeling way of dealing with unwanted women" - Did you really write that, Expat ?

The man was a multiple mass murderer.

 

[Daisiesforever]

I think being a successful King in the 1500's and being a successful King in 2011 are two completely different things. Henry VIII was a mass murderer yet considered to be a successful King. Hitler was a mass murderer but certainly not a successful leader. The point here is that times have changed and ways of governing have certainly changed.

As for Kings or leaders being demi-gods, there is no such thing.

 

[Renata4711]

I think this Forum shows us just how many unfit rulers there are in the world, especially during these times, and when the Arab world is in uproar.

However, unfit rulers come in many guises, such as Berlusconi, or perhaps a Monegasque Prince, centuries ago....

 

[Tyger]

As for Kings or leaders being demi-gods, there is no such thing.

Historically there is - but one has to go back to near mythological times - though Alexander the Great comes to mind. Certain of the Caesars ascribed to themselves divinity of a kind. Then there is the 'Divine Right of Kings' - 'royal blood' being blue, France's the Sun King, and so it goes. The idea of the King being the vehicle of the god(s) or a god in themselves is familiar to cultures from around the world, from Middle America (Aztecs and Mayans I think ascribed to this view - though I'm not certain on this truth to say) ancient Siam to ancient Egypt to even recently China and Japan.

 

[expat]

Henry VIII

"Rather unfeeling way of dealing with unwanted women" - Did you really write that, Expat ?

The man was a multiple mass murderer.

I was trying to put it in a nice way, but of course there is no "nice" way of describing murder.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think being a successful King in the 1500's and being a successful King in 2011 are two completely different things. Henry VIII was a mass murderer yet considered to be a successful King. Hitler was a mass murderer but certainly not a successful leader. The point here is that times have changed and ways of governing have certainly changed.

As for Kings or leaders being demi-gods, there is no such thing.

Henry VIII wasn't a mass murdered as his victims had trials and were found guilty of crimes - whether they would be found guilty today is another thing but they were given a trial and thus a chance, of a sort to defend themselves.

Mass murderers don't do that.

If Henry VIII was a mass murdered then so are many governors in the US who sign death warrants and even the present Queen, who also signed multiple death warrants before the death penalty was abolished.

I was trying to put it in a nice way, but of course there is no "nice" way of describing murder.

Murder is an illegal act.

Did Henry act illegally? No therefore he isn't a murderer.

 

[nascarlucy]

Everyone was put on this earth for a purpose. It could be to do one thing or to do many things. Once that purpose has been fulfilled, then the person leaves this earth, on to their next mission. When someone is a good person or who has done good things for people, this is easy to understand. When someone comes to this earth and does horrible things, one has to wonder why they were sent here.

When someone lives a long healthy life and died when they are very old, people are of course sad but no one questions God on it. If the person is very young and dies of a disease or dies tragically like Princess Diana did, people probably questioned why this happened or they are angry at God over this. I've known a few people who questioned why God allowed such a terrible thing to happen to Princess Diana. As I see it there are some terrible things and tragedies that happen which can't be answered on earth and will only be answered in the afterlife. I'm ending these comments here as I'm trying not to get into a discussion about religion but just general statements.

Those monarchs who are sitting on the throne probably believe in some way that they are blessed by God or God chose them to sit on the throne. God is higher than they are and they recognize that. They have to answer to God for their actions just like everyone else. In death everyone is equal in that respect. Monarchs centuries ago figured they didn't have to answer to anyone because God chose them and favored them over others. I imagine they got a rude awakening in the afterlife.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Good gawd this is a discussion on how the queen reacted to Diana's death. If you want to talk about Henry VIII and narcassistic rulers, take it to another forum.
BACK ON TOPIC
It's sad that the queen had to suffer through a mob mentality spured on by media intervention. But thankfully she got passed it.

 

[nascarlucy]

I thinkthe mob mentality took the Queen by surprise. I don't think she expected it or expected to be attacked in the media. In the past when things involved Diana, she was not criticized or attacked over it. She was generally removed from it to a certain degree. She got through it as she has gotten through many other difficult periods.

 

[COUNTESS]

Stop with the "mob mentality" phrase. It has been parsed around, after Diana's death, by the pro Charles, I married my misstress, so what group. Diana is dead. When she died it was shocking. She was young and beautiful. She was foolish. She marrried Charles. The BRF hated her. The queen was stuck with a conumdrum. Tony Blair and Charles seemed to have the right instincts. The BRF never thought that anyone, but them would have these feelings expressed by others. Diana shocked the queen, who never really saw her value, from the beginning. Too bad, she might have made a difference.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It was a mob mentality whether you like Diana or not. I am not one of the people who buys into the "poor innocent Diana married the big mean Charles" but that doesn't change that how the Queen and the family was treated after Diana died was disgusting and resembled a mob. A bunch of people just feeding off of each other's emotions and demanding that a grieving family show the world how sad they are. It wasn't a freakin movie, it was a real family who were trying to cope with their loss and help 2 young boys cope with it as well.
This idea that the Royal Family are somehow evil urchins who tortured poor helpless Diana is one I no longer buy; as someone once said, they were as much stuck with her as she was stuck with them.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Um. No. I believe that the press whipped up a "mob mentality" who demanded the Queen somehow do something to make them feel better, in spite of her being the grandmother of two young boys who had just lost their mother. Before the "mob" turned on the Royal Family, they were attacking journalists and photographers. I'm definitely not one of the "....so what" group that you mention, but even I can see that there was some sort of hysterical mourning about Diana. Those who knew her personally had every right to mourn her. Those of us who didn't had the right to our own sadness but not the right to bully the Queen into acting a certain way.

I think that there was something cathartic and probably necessary about people expressing their grief at the time. Everyone has experienced some kind of loss, and I think that Diana's death made it possible for people to "let it all out." When you've lost someone close, every other loss hurts more thereafter.

Had the press not pushed the agenda about blaming the Queen, I think that people would still have been sad; but there might not have been the bitterness expressed toward the Royal Family.

Stop with the "mob mentality" phrase. It has been parsed around, after Diana's death, by the pro Charles, I married my misstress, so what group.

 

[king of scotland]

Stop with the "mob mentality" phrase. It has been parsed around, after Diana's death, by the pro Charles, I married my misstress, so what group. Diana is dead. When she died it was shocking. She was young and beautiful. She was foolish. She marrried Charles. The BRF hated her. The queen was stuck with a conumdrum. Tony Blair and Charles seemed to have the right instincts. The BRF never thought that anyone, but them would have these feelings expressed by others. Diana shocked the queen, who never really saw her value, from the beginning. Too bad, she might have made a difference. .

but IT WAS a mob. The people were like rabid dogs foaming at the mouth over people they didn't know and with the added instigation of the press. It was disgraceful. Also, add the fact the interviews from an very spiteful and paranoid Diana over the last few years before her death added to the fire.