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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but he could have been instructed to do so. I'm sure the Queen has some pull there, if she so chooses.
Exactly where would you have suggested he put reference to the deceased... prosper them with happiness? :rolleyes:

Hm was probably in a state of shock herself, I would think everyone on her staff was, the last thing anyone would be thinking, IMO, was to find someone to run down and tell the vicar to alter the service?
 
Gill, when the royals attend the services in Crathie, aren't their names mentioned? I believe they are and that is what makes this a different situation.

It isn't just Crathie, it's a standard prayer or blessing or something of the sort that's part of the church service. After the divorce, Diana was dropped from the list of people who are mentioned. She wasn't omitted simply at that one service after her death.

The Shorter Prayer Book: Prayers and Thanksgivings
 
Thank you, Elspeth. Oh, I realize her name wasn't just omitted during that particular service. I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I just think that if members of the RF are mentioned by name, perhaps an exception could have been made under those extraordinary circumstances for the sake of the boys. Whether it would have been the best thing to do, well, I suppose only William and Harry could answer that one. I think the public was angry after it was reported that, after the service, Harry asked his father if Diana really died. If true, that certainly would imply that certain expectations were there on the part of her sons.

But we could go on debating endlessly about what the Queen should or shouldn't have done after Diana died. It won't change anything. But perhaps instead of arguing over what was right or wrong, we could look upon that chapter in history as a time when the monarchy, and to a degree it's subjects (not to mention a 'few of us' in other parts of the world), experienced some rather painful growing pains. If we were to repeat that chapter in history, perhaps the royal family would do certain things differently and I believe the public would have a better understanding of other aspects of the situation.
 
I just think that if members of the RF are mentioned by name, perhaps an exception could have been made under those extraordinary circumstances for the sake of the boys.

Why were these circumstances any more extraordinary (from the point of view of the church) than any other death of any other family member of a young person attending the service?
 
I'm not an expert on church doctrine - far from it - but adding her to that prayer would be asking God to bless a dead person, and I'm not sure that that's sanctioned by the church.

I mean, look at the wording. Unless I'm missing something, it wouldn't make sense.

ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The alternative would be to make a special mention of her somewhere else in the service, and as wbenson said, if this isn't done routinely when a parishioner dies, there's no reason to do it this time. After the divorce, Diana wasn't a parishioner anyway, as far as I know.
 
So did she even go to church on a regular basis? Even when she was married?
 
I'm not an expert on church doctrine - far from it - but adding her to that prayer would be asking God to bless a dead person, and I'm not sure that that's sanctioned by the church.

I mean, look at the wording. Unless I'm missing something, it wouldn't make sense.

ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Isn't that from the Book of Common Prayer? If it is, they likely wouldn't have used it at Crathie, unless the Church of Scotland also uses it. (I don't know much about either church.)
 
Well, I'm assuming the CoS has something equivalent, but I don't know.
 
I think that what is missed here is that the Queen is a very religious person, in times of difficulty or worry she would naturally go to church for comfort, and that is especially at a time of a family death. I am sure that when she took her grandsons to church with her she believed they would be equally comforted. Others may not think that way but a deeply religious person does and from all accounts the Queen is devout.
Perhaps saying gawking was a bit out of place for the kindly villagers of Craithie, but even in Craithie all attention, even though kindly meant, would be on the two young Princes to see how they would react. If and when royalty cry, I am sure it is done behind closed doors and not in public for the satisfaction of people wanting to see.
Some years back I attended a royal wedding, on leaving the church the whole congregation was surrounded by onlookers, they crowded right up to us. some almost touching and what was most disconcerting was that they were talking about everyone as though we couldn´t hear them. It was a joyous occasion and I am sure that they were there to wish the couple well but it is not an agreeable situation. The only amusement I got out of being crowded like that was that they were speculating as to who I was.....I got a HRH for my 15 (minutes) seconds of fame, but the tendency was to speak as though the people in the wedding party couldn´t hear. Now just imagine if you had just lost someone dear to you, people crowding up to you, talking to you, about you, even if these comments were kindly meant. It would be a nightmare.
The Queen knows all this very well, she has had a lifetime of it, so if she acted the way she did it was appropriate and to the best interests of her grandchildren.
 
One thing that we should also remember here that this event was only a few weeks after William had been confirmed.

As such he had just committed himself to being a believer in God so it wouldn't be all that unnatural to go to church.

When my mother died, my father and I went to the cathedral in the town and said a prayer together before we met with the priest who was going to preside over Mum's funeral. We again prayed for Mum. When my brother joined us later that day he also joined us in prayer.

I am aware that not everyone finds comfort in prayer but many people do and at that time in their lives the young princes may very well have done so, particularly as William had just been confirmed. Harry would simply have wanted to be with his father and older brother so when they indicated that they wanted to go to church that morning Harry would have wanted to be with them.
 
Isn't that from the Book of Common Prayer? If it is, they likely wouldn't have used it at Crathie, unless the Church of Scotland also uses it. (I don't know much about either church.)
I will put the link to the Scottish service again. :flowers: This is the order that is used at Crathie and all CoS morning services.


[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia][FONT=Century Schoolbook, Georgia, serif]A PRAYER FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY[/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia] [/FONT][FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]A[/FONT][FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]LMIGHTY God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy heavenly grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[/FONT]
[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]-
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia] [/FONT] The following prayer may be said, for the Queen, the Royal Family, the Ministers of the Crown, the Parliament (when in session). and those in. Authority, instead of the prayers For the Queen's Majesty, For the Royal Family, and For the High Court of Parliament; but always either the following prayer, or those above noted, shall he used, together with the Prayer for the Clergy and People, the Prayer of Saint Chrysostom, and The Grace, unless the Litany be said.

[FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia]O[/FONT][FONT=Century, Century Schoolbook, Georgia] LORD God of our fathers, who rulest the nations of the earth: Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, that she may alwav incline to thy will and walk in thy way; and together with her bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Charles Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family. Endue with wisdom the Ministers of the Crown, [the high Court of Parliament at this
Parliament_session.gif
time assembled*,] and those who are set in authority over us, that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Scottish Book of Common Prayer
[/FONT]
 
:previous: And that, as they say, is that! Many thanks Skydragon. :flowers:

But what a legacy of wonderful words the Martyrs of the early churches left to us. The historical Liturgy of the CofE and the CofS is truely inspiring. :flowers:
 
Gill, when the royals attend the services in Crathie, aren't their names mentioned? I believe they are and that is what makes this a different situation. If their names were not normally mentioned then it could be argued that it's not the way it's done, etc. However, in this particular case, if other members of the family are mentioned, it only magnifies the omission of Diana's name. I realize she was divorced from Charles, but she was the boys' mother...again, the boys the royals were putting first.

I'm not arguing with the original point you made, I understand that, I'm simply explaining why some people feel strongly about the omission of her name.

To the best of my recollection, the only royal mentioned by name was the Queen.

And, yes it was a Church of Scotland service and used a simple printed sheet rather than a prayer book service.
 
To the best of my recollection, the only royal mentioned by name was the Queen.
And, yes it was a Church of Scotland service and used a simple printed sheet rather than a prayer book service.
Thank you, Gill. If there is such a thing as perfect timing, I think you experienced it. :)
 
prayers

These are the set prayers and to my thinking there is nowhere to suddenly slip in Diana's name

I am Roman Catholic so I am not familar with the Anglican service. Thanks for the information.

There is no place for intentions from the congregation??
 
I am Roman Catholic so I am not familar with the Anglican service. Thanks for the information.

There is no place for intentions from the congregation??
No, there is no similar thing in the CoE or CoS that I can think of. Over the years I have attended many a service and there has not, from what I remember, been a personal aspect included in any of them. Apart from a mention perhaps of a coffee morning to be held.
 
The Royal Family have made their first public appearance since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. On Thursday evening, the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry drove the short distance from Balmoral Castle to Craithie Church, for a remembrance service for Diana

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/diana/family.html
 
I notice that the article said that Balmoral Castle was a haven for the Princes and other members of the RF I imagine. They soon had to leave this haven to face , in my opinion,a crazed crowd. Poor young boys, even HM couldn´t protect them from the well-intentioned or just curious crowd of strangers, but she tried.
 
I should think the RF has a 'haven' available to them whether they’re staying in Balmoral, Windsor, Sandringham, etc. I agree that protecting William and Harry was top priority, but it's not like the Queen was holding their hands 24/7 and wasn't able to do anything else. She has always been monarch first, then wife, mother, etc.
 
The Queen was on holiday at Balmoral. That is the time she is officially off duty so she did have the time, if she had been allowed to, to spend with her bereaved grandsons.
At Windsor, at Buckingham Palace and official engagements she is monarch, but on holiday in Balmoral and Sandringham she can be herself, the mother, grandmother, aunt or whatever she wishes to be.
 
. . . . . . . . but it's not like the Queen was holding their hands 24/7 and wasn't able to do anything else.
No, she didn't need to hold their hands 24/7 but, she and she alone dictated that the BRF would remain incommunicado as long as possible. She mandated that as a buffer between Balmoral and the world.
monika said:
She has always been monarch first, then wife, mother, etc.
That is more than a little harsh and IMO inaccurate. If that were the case she would have acceded to Tony Blair's request that they all return to London posthaste. She was prepared to keep the family in private mourning until the actual funeral. Private mourning has nothing to do with being the Queen and, in this case, the "mother" and "grandmother" overrode the outrageous demands of the "public interest". She took the media heat for a stunned and grieving family.
 
That is more than a little harsh and IMO inaccurate. If that were the case she would have acceded to Tony Blair's request that they all return to London posthaste. She was prepared to keep the family in private mourning until the actual funeral. Private mourning has nothing to do with being the Queen and, in this case, the "mother" and "grandmother" overrode the outrageous demands of the "public interest". She took the media heat for a stunned and grieving family.
Well, HM is very dedicated and has always put the monarchy first. I did not mean it in a negative way.

As for outrageous demands, I beg to differ. IMO, it wasn't so much what the public 'demanded'; it was how the public reacted to the royals' silence. I've often wondered if things would have been calmer if Charles had issued a simple statement on behalf of himself and his sons...a simple message thanking the public for the "overwhelming outpouring of support at this time." Something along those lines... Had something like that been done, I don't think things would have escalated the way they did. You can't please everyone, I realize, but I think small gestures can go a long way.
 
They were outrageous demands, stirred up by the media trying to shift the blame. It is inconceivable that anyone would expect a grieving family to issue a statement or act in a certain way, I wonder how many would have thought 'put the public' first in the same situation?

The Royal Family put the boys first, as they should. They actually knew Diana as a person not just a 'celeb'. It must have been a tremendous shock to the entire family and the last people they should have to consider were the fickle public!
 
They were outrageous demands, stirred up by the media trying to shift the blame. It is inconceivable that anyone would expect a grieving family to issue a statement or act in a certain way, I wonder how many would have thought 'put the public' first in the same situation?

The Royal Family put the boys first, as they should. They actually knew Diana as a person not just a 'celeb'. It must have been a tremendous shock to the entire family and the last people they should have to consider were the fickle public!


Ah but you forget that the young ladies who had married into the family and then left it gave the public the view that the RF was cold and heartless so the public were unprepared for the fact that when one of said ladies died the RF would actually behave like a family and put the children of said woman first.

The press had gone along with that impression of the family and had demonised them for years for their 'coldness' etc based on the views expressed by these ladies (one more so than the other).

Now the press found itself as potentially the target so turned the people against the unfeeling and cold RF and low and behold the family didn't fit that image but actually behaved like a family first - they helped two truly grieving young boys cope with the death of their mother.
 
It is inconceivable that anyone would expect a grieving family to issue a statement or act in a certain way, I wonder how many would have thought 'put the public' first in the same situation?
Since most of us are private citizens, I suppose not many. But most of us don't make televised statements either. A move that would not have been necessary had a smaller gesture been done earlier, as in issuing a statement similar to the one I suggested.

The Royal Family put the boys first, as they should. They actually knew Diana as a person not just a 'celeb'. It must have been a tremendous shock to the entire family and the last people they should have to consider were the fickle public!
I've read many comments where the Queen is accused of not caring about her former, non-royal daughter-in-law, and other times I read of a family's shock and grief? I'd say THAT is a bit fickle.
 
I can dislike a person intensely, and furthermore have very good reasons for this dislike, but I would still be shocked and I must say grieved if that person was suddenly killed in a traffic accident.
 
Unless there is a statement from a reliable source or HM herself, I would find it hard to give any credence to such statements that she didn't care about her ex daughter in law. HM may not be a private citizen (according to some) but she is a human being, mother and grandmother.

Many bereaved families choose after a few days to speak to the press, but many more do not. It is not something they should even have to concern themselves with at such a time.

And yes, fickle public some of whom before the accident were all but worshiping the self proclaimed queen of hearts, rather than the real royal family.
---------------------
It seems the public wants a touchy feely Royal Familay, but that touchy feeliness is only to be directed at them! :eek:
 
Unless there is a statement from a reliable source or HM herself, I would find it hard to give any credence to such statements that she didn't care about her ex daughter in law.
Actually, I was referring to statements made here, repeatedly.

And yes, fickle public some of whom before the accident were all but worshiping the self proclaimed queen of hearts, rather than the real royal family.
People admired and respected the princess, yes, absolutely. 'Worship' is a good attempt to trivialize that fact. As for the 'real' royal family, well titles didn't matter in the end as far as the public was concerned, did it? And she was still William and Harry's REAL mother.

Titles and respect don't necessarily go hand in hand, but that is another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom