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

[Iluvbertie]

Back to the original question: Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death?

Whether the Queen liked or disliked Diana, and I only ever seen a few comments on boards like this to say that she didn't, as we have never heard the Queen say so, the point was that she did have one overriding responsibility that week - to see to the welfare of Diana's sons who happened to be staying with her when Diana died.

That the Queen actually did so was the right thing to do.

The public, who didn't know Diana personally, but thought that they did due to the way she courted the press to push her own agenda, had NO rights to demand anything of the grandmother of Diana's sons.

Throughout her life Diana constantly portrayed the RF as being cold and heartless and putting duty first. When the RF actually do the opposite i.e. put the care of Diana's sons first they get pilloried for it by people then and now. I suspect that Diana would have been pleased that the RF actually put the care of her sons first, as that was one thing that she advocated - the putting of family first on occasions. I remember the criticism that she made sure was levelled at Charles for going to a public function on the day that William was injured. How much more would she have been pleased to see Charles and the Queen supporting the boys after her death - i.e. when necessary retreating to being a family rather than being a 'public institution'.'

I have said it before and will continue saying it - the Queen acted correctly. The public did not. Diana had manipulated the public during her life through the press and the public were again manipulated during that week to turn on the RF who were supporting Diana's sons.

I will long remember Philip's words when the family returned to London and someone in the crowd yelled out words to the effect of 'Take care of those boys' and Philip replied 'What do you think we have been doing?' So true - the boys were put first as they rightly should have been and the mob should have felt ashamed of themselves for expecting anything else of the RF.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that the Queen reacted appropriately. She did what needed to be done in order to prevent a continuation of the hysteria surrounding Diana's death--a hysteria which I believe was whipped up by the press. It's sad when a beautiful young woman dies, especially a young woman who at one time embodied so many people's hopes and dreams. As Princess of Wales, though, Diana's first responsibility was to support the Queen in her role--not to be famous in her own right or want to be "queen of people's hearts." Did I admire Diana? Yes. Did I feel sad when she died? Yes. Do I remember her with fondness and affection? Yes. Do I think that she was self-indulgent and self-centered? Also, yes. IMO the Queen did nothing to deserve the hatred that was directed her way after Diana's death.

 

[Elspeth]

I'd like some evidence that the Queen didn't like Diana. In book after book it says that the Queen was sympathetic toward her and tried to help her long after other members of the family had given up on her.

Considering that Diana was trying to take on the role of Queen of Hearts, which is a direct challenge to the Queen in a constitutional monarchy, I think the Queen behaved with remarkable patience until the time when Diana pushed her too far by challenging her in public. The notion that Diana was the best thing that happened to the monarchy in hundreds of years, given that baggage, is debatable to say the least. A few hundred years ago she'd have found herself in the Tower on a charge of high treason if she'd pulled a stunt like that.

 

[Monika_]

The boys were a priority, but they weren't the only priority. In Christopher Andersen's book, 'After Diana', he states that both the Queen and Charles made calls inquiring about any royal jewelry Diana may have had with her in Paris. He quotes a Nurse Humbert. Grief stricken?? Or business first?? Add to that the reported question from Harry, "Is mummy really dead." Add to that that the Queen didn't want Charles to fly to Paris and that she didn't want Diana's body to be placed in a royal chapel. Consider the silence from the RF, where a simple statement from Charles (on behalf of Diana's sons) would have gone far.

Let us consider all this before we talk about the hysterical crowds and what they demanded of the RF. The RF was hardly blameless in the week long escalation of ill will. And perhaps Earl Spencer wasn't always the best brother to Diana but, IMO, he said things that needed to be said.

 

[wbenson]

In Christopher Andersen's book, 'After Diana', he states that both the Queen and Charles made calls inquiring about any royal jewelry Diana may have had with her in Paris.

The Queen and Charles themselves called to get jewelry? I don't believe that at all.

The RF was hardly blameless in the week long escalation of ill will.

I'll ask again: What should they have done differently?

And perhaps Earl Spencer wasn't always the best brother to Diana but, IMO, he said things that needed to be said.

Trashing the family of the deceased's children at the funeral is never called for.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I don't see any problem with calling to ask whether Diana had any Royal Jewelry with her when she died. Expensive things have a way of "disappearing" when they aren't accounted for, and it's responsible ownership to want to know what happens to valuables after an emergency. Also, what went on at Balmoral after Diana's death is up for debate. There are at least two different accounts circulating about what happened.

When there's an accident, someone has to be blamed in the public mind. At first the paparazzi was blamed, then the press in general, then the press attacked the Royal Family--and the Queen in particular. The Queen wasn't reponsible for Diana getting into that Mercedes and being driven to her death, but she was blamed for everything that happened after that. I don't think that's fair.

In Christopher Andersen's book, 'After Diana', he states that both the Queen and Charles made calls inquiring about any royal jewelry Diana may have had with her in Paris. He quotes a Nurse Humbert. Grief stricken?? Or business first?? Add to that the reported question from Harry, "Is mummy really dead." Add to that that the Queen didn't want Charles to fly to Paris and that she didn't want Diana's body to be placed in a royal chapel. Consider the silence from the RF, where a simple statement from Charles (on behalf of Diana's sons) would have gone far.

Let us consider all this before we talk about the hysterical crowds and what they demanded of the RF. The RF was hardly blameless in the week long escalation of ill will. And perhaps Earl Spencer wasn't always the best brother to Diana but, IMO, he said things that needed to be said.

 

[Monika_]

The Queen and Charles themselves called to get jewelry? I don't believe that at all.

Charles spoke to the nurse personally. The Queen's inquiry was made through the British Consul's office. It's on page 10 and 11 of the book.

I'll ask again: What should they have done differently?.

I don't know what more I can add to my last comment. I understand that a reason can be given for each issue I brought up, but the fact remains that the RF underestimated the public's reaction and perhaps they dug their heels in because it probably annoyed them.

Trashing the family of the deceased's children at the funeral is never called for.

I don't think it trashed them. Perhaps the truth hurt, but I really don't think it was his intention to trash them.

 

[wbenson]

Charles spoke to the nurse personally. The Queen's inquiry was made through the British Consul's office. It's on page 10 and 11 of the book.

I believe that it's in the book. I just don't believe that it's true.

Perhaps the truth hurt, but I really don't think it was his intention to trash them.

He should have had some people look over his speeches that week, then.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not so sure he didn't go out of his way to trash the royals, but I think there was some self-preservation involved. I think we were seeing some of the same things that went on with the press. It didn't emerge till later that Lord Spencer was at the Abbey with his girlfriend and that he'd been treating his wife rather badly, to say nothing of the boorish way he treated Raine when his father died, or that he was estranged from Diana when she died. I don't recall whether the information about his refusing to let her move into that house on the Althorp estate had been made public by then. He had plenty of problems himself when it came to ill treatment of someone marrying into the family and in terms of not treating Diana particularly well. Where better to deflect the blame? Must have helped his conscience more than a little to dump it all on the royals - who aren't in the habit of answering back, at least in public - and make those wonderful public promises to William and Harry. What a hero.

 

[Monika_]

He should have had some people look over his speeches that week, then.

Perhaps, but if we're asked to cut some slack for a family that Diana was no longer a part of (as we keep reading here), then maybe we could do the same for her brother.

 

[Monika_]

Yes, Elspeth. To a degree he may have been coming to terms with some internal conflicts regarding his relationship with Diana. I just don't think it was intended as a full blown assault. The Spencer's have a long history of service to the monarchy and his nephews are part of that family. Regardless of how he felt about how Diana was treated by the RF, I don't think he intended to undermine all of that.

 

[sirhon11234]

IMO his attack on the RF at the Princess' funeral was unnecessary. When Charles said "We your blood family" I thought it was direct insult to the BRF whom is Wills and Harry's blood family to. He made himself look like he was there for Diana in her time of need when in reality he wasn't.

 

[ysbel]

I'll cut Earl Spencer some slack; I still think he's a jerk but Diana was the closest person to him when he was a small boy and they had not had a chance to reconcile by the time she died.

I think the Spencers were traumatized because so many of them were estranged from Diana and when she died, there was no going back.

As much as I disliked Diana, I believe she had a right to expect her family to look after her interests as one of their own. Your in-laws are not going to look after your interests and put your interests above theirs the way that you could expect it from your own family.

 

[kimebear]

Earl Spencer certainly was not there when she needed him most, which is probably why he felt the need to make such a strong familial stand at the funeral. Even if it was at the expense of the BRF. You have to give him credit though. He was a much better judge of the public's mood than the RF was and he gave them what they wanted. The fact that the Queen did not stand up and slap him as he came off the dais is highly to her credit, IMO.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think he was judging the public mood when he made that statement; I think he was just hurt and angry - maybe mostly at himself, who knows?

 

[Menarue]

In my opinion "Queen of Hearts" is the most ridiculous title I have ever heard. I will forever have engraved in my memory Diana´s face with all that "sorrowful" eye make- up looking at the camera, looking down and biting her lip and saying something that, at least for British ears except the most gullible, sounds so false and affected.
She was the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales who died with her boyfriend in a car crash.
Be sensible about this, if any of you have a divorced son are you going to put on the most wonderful funeral ever for his ex-wife and make a huge fuss in public because she was a famous film star and people loved her films? True, she had two sons and they are going to be the heirs to YOUR fortune, would this make any difference to you personally?
I would comfort them in private, give them the money for a lovely wreath and make sure they were appropriately dressed and make arrangements for them to be present and looked after at the funeral.
That is what I would do, but HM the Queen did very differently and now she is still being criticized.
I hope to never see another such display but I bet the florists in England will not say the same.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually that is what she did do - she comforted her grandsons, ensure that they were appropriately dressed at the funeral and that they were looked after - by their father and grandparents and other members of their father's family.
I hope to never see another such display but I bet the florists in England will not say the same.[/quote]

 

[Menarue]

I meant by "differently", that the Queen did do all these things and went much further than any other mother would for the ex-wife of a son who very publicly admitted adultery.

 

[Skydragon]

The boys were a priority, but they weren't the only priority. In Christopher Andersen's book, 'After Diana', he states that both the Queen and Charles made calls inquiring about any royal jewelry Diana may have had with her in Paris. He quotes a Nurse Humbert. Grief stricken?? Or business first?? Add to that the reported question from Harry, "Is mummy really dead." Add to that that the Queen didn't want Charles to fly to Paris and that she didn't want Diana's body to be placed in a royal chapel. Consider the silence from the RF, where a simple statement from Charles (on behalf of Diana's sons) would have gone far.

Does Andersen give any evidence to support his claim? At the inquest when everyone was questioned or gave statements to the inquest, the only part pertaining to jewelery was when Charles asked them to look for one of Diana's earrings that was missing (embedded in the dashboard IB). As for Diana having any 'royal jewels', the few pieces she was allowed to use, would have to be checked in or out of the vaults, so that is something that would have been known immediately by HM's London staff. I can't quite see HM or Charles with a list of pieces and a check box.

So Harry asked 'is mummy really dead', - entirely natural as most parents who have lost a partner will tell you, (including me).

Do we have any evidence that HM didn't want Charles to fly to Paris?

Earl Spencer didn't want his sister given any of the trappings of royalty as I understood it, it was he that turned down the 'extras'.

I can't understand most of the points you are trying to raise as evidence of HM not caring or doing the right thing.

 

[Skydragon]

For whatever reason, the queen et.al didn't like Diana, but the royal family is a public institution and the public had a right to expect a public statement -- which they eventually got in a somewhat ok fashion as a diplomatic effort.

Could you point us to the statement from HM or indeed anyone else to say HM didn't like Diana? Oh dear, 'the public had a right', don't you think the people who knew her, that were comforting her sons whilst in shock themselves, had any right to expect to be allowed to absorb the events themselves?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

One point I didn't seem to have read in this discussion so far is that the princes used to stay with their mother when in London and were scheduled to come to London on Monday, 1. Sept. 1997. So when Diana died, the boys simply did not have a place to go to in London - Charles had his appartments I think in St. James's when in London but I don't think his sons had bedrooms there as they were normally staying with their mother. Plus I recall a former staff member saying that Charles had Camilla as his guest when in London. So I don't think it was seen as a good solution to hurry back as preperations had to be done first to find a place for the boys to stay - they couldn't stay alone at Diana's appartment, they couldn't be given the use of a guest appartment in Buckingham Palace as they would be alone there as well. So IIRC Tiggy was alerted and had to organize her coming to London and Charles' appartment had to be readied for the boys - all of which will have taken time - time the Royal family was well advised to spent in Balmoral as they simply could not come back to London immediately. IMHO, at least.

 

[Menarue]

True, I had never thought about that. Where would they stay? Burrell was busy "cleaning" the apartment so they couldn´t have stayed there.

 

[kimebear]

Do we have any evidence that HM didn't want Charles to fly to Paris?

Short of a statement released from HM's press secretary, much of what was written about that day is open for speculation just like anything else. Another book, The Queen & Di by Ingrid Seward states that the Queen's initial denial to Charles of the Queen's Flight was before Diana's death had been confirmed. Once it was confirmed, a flight was immediately authorized. Seward also goes on to say that the Queen, on the advice of Robert Fellowes, also opposed the idea of bringing Diana's body back on the flight as she was no longer a member of the royal family. It was Robin Janvrin who convinced the Queen to agree to the idea when he asked her "What would you rather, Ma'am - that she be brought back in a Harrods van?"

I'm not sure that anyone that has posted recently expressed disappointment that the boys did not return to London right away, so why is where they could stay is an issue? I thought that the boys had their own rooms at St. James after the divorce. Wasn't Tiggy's presence at St. James (as a result of her nanny position) a cause of tension between Charles and Diana at one time? As far as Camilla being there, I have a hard time believing that she would be unwilling to leave if it meant that Charles' grieving sons could come home with him. If St. James was out of the question, there was always Clarence House with the Queen Mother, or even Windsor where they stayed regularly if it came down to it. These are not people with a lack of homes.

 

[Menarue]

I thought that Tiggy had married in the meantime so she would have had to make arrangements. I hadn´t thought that the "people" wanted the Queen to rush back to London to comfort them and leave the Princes behind. I don´t think there is a lack of houses, but there may have been in those hectic days, the lack of a place of comfort for them in London. Surely, Balmoral was a far more suitable place for them to be in the company of their grandparents until the funeral.

 

[Skydragon]

Short of a statement released from HM's press secretary, much of what was written about that day is open for speculation just like anything else. Another book, The Queen & Di by Ingrid Seward states that the Queen's initial denial to Charles of the Queen's Flight was before Diana's death had been confirmed. Once it was confirmed, a flight was immediately authorized. Seward also goes on to say that the Queen, on the advice of Robert Fellowes, also opposed the idea of bringing Diana's body back on the flight as she was no longer a member of the royal family. It was Robin Janvrin who convinced the Queen to agree to the idea when he asked her "What would you rather, Ma'am - that she be brought back in a Harrods van?"

Thank you kimebear. I know nobody is keen on my challenging what is written in some of these books, but...
How on earth would Seward have found out what the Queen said to her Private secretary at such a time. Fellowes would also have been in shock, it was his wife's sister! I know according to the film 'The Queen' Sir Robin was shown to make the comment about the Harrods van, but in real life, perhaps it is a little unlikely the man would have made such an uncouth comment?

As an aside, he is shown in the film as HM's Private Secretary, which of course was yet another of the inaccuracies or writer/directors imagination!

 

[kimebear]

I thought that Tiggy had married in the meantime so she would have had to make arrangements. I hadn´t thought that the "people" wanted the Queen to rush back to London to comfort them and leave the Princes behind. I don´t think there is a lack of houses, but there may have been in those hectic days, the lack of a place of comfort for them in London. Surely, Balmoral was a far more suitable place for them to be in the company of their grandparents until the funeral.

Tiggy worked for Charles until 1999 when she married Charles Pettifer. As far as places of comfort for the boys, well...who knows where that might have been. Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. They both went to boarding school and spent the majority of the year there with William at Eton and Harry at Ludgrove. What little time they did spend out of term was either with Diana at Kensington or abroad, Charles at Highgrove or St. James and then Balmoral or Windsor with the Queen. I would imagine a place of comfort would have been wherever their family was at the time.

Thank you kimebear. I know nobody is keen on my challenging what is written in some of these books, but...
How on earth would Seward have found out what the Queen said to her Private secretary at such a time. Fellowes would also have been in shock, it was his wife's sister! I know according to the film 'The Queen' Sir Robin was shown to make the comment about the Harrods van, but in real life, perhaps it is a little unlikely the man would have made such an uncouth comment?

As an aside, he is shown in the film as HM's Private Secretary, which of course was yet another of the inaccuracies or writer/directors imagination!

Who knows? How do we, the lowly public, know anything about the royals for sure? Unless it is an official event and there are interviews, photos or statements, 99% of what we perceive to know about them is all speculation based on what we read in books, newspapers and, yes, tabloids. Stories and supposed "inside information" that comes from speculation and suspect informants. All of which has to be seen through the POV of the author. None of us know for sure if the Queen cried when Diana died or threw darts at her picture at Balmoral. Or if Princess Anne consoled Charles or just said "Finally!" or if Prince Phillip comforted the boys or just shrugged and read the morning paper.

As far as inaccuracies in The Queen, ugh, don't even get me started.

 

[Mermaid1962]

It was my understanding that the "blood family" statement was addressed to the deceased Diana and not to William and Harry.

IMO his attack on the RF at the Princess' funeral was unnecessary. When Charles said "We your blood family" I thought it was direct insult to the BRF whom is Wills and Harry's blood family to. He made himself look like he was there for Diana in her time of need when in reality he wasn't.

Ah...like a politician.

He was a much better judge of the public's mood than the RF was and he gave them what they wanted

 

[sthreats]

Diana impact and Queen's response

I have been reading the posts of the past 3 days with interest. I can't post from my mobile. It seems that the British public's response to Diana's death was very similar to African-American response when King and Malcom X died. She MEANT something to many people and they took her death personally as if a family member had died. Maybe it does not make "sense" but certain people have that impact on the world. Yes, the press stirred up the negative feelings towards the Queen and the RF, but the intense grief was already in place. I do think if the Queen had made a public statement and/or came down earlier a lot of this later 'over the top grieving ' or clowning as we say in my neighborhood could have been abated.
Maybe the Queen could'nt always respect the woman but she should have shown earlier respect to Diana's position (mother of the future King, former Princess of Wales etc..)

 

[Roslyn]

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 see no conflict between these two concepts.

I don't know whether HM personally liked Diana or not, but even if she didn't care much for her at all, I don't believe for one minute that she cared so little she would have been pleased that Diana had been killed in a violent high-speed motor vehicle collision. I'm quite confident that she would have been shocked by the news, and have been greatly saddened by the knowledge of how she died. I didn't care much for Diana, and I had never even met her, but I was shocked when I heard the news. I can't say I grieved, but I was a bit numb for the whole week and watched all the news about her and then the funeral.

Diana was HM's grandsons' mother, and had been part of HM's family for some years. Despite the unpleasantness that occurred when the marriage soured, there would have been many happy family occasions and HM would have had many happy memories of Diana as a daughter-in-law and loving mother to HM's two grandsons, and I'm sure HM and Charles, and the rest of the RF, were saddened that Diana's life had been cut short the way it was. Regardless of how Diana had behaved in recent years, she was still William & Harry's beloved mother and the boys were grieving. As well as whatever sadness they felt about the fact of Diana's death, I'm sure that HM and the Duke and Charles felt intense anguish and pain seeing the boys suffer and, quite rightly IMNSHO, felt compelled to give priority to helping William and Harry cope with their pain and loss.

 

[MARG]

I'd like some evidence that the Queen didn't like Diana. In book after book it says that the Queen was sympathetic toward her and tried to help her long after other members of the family had given up on her.

Well the who "Tragic Affair" would not have sold half so well if the Queen either liked or was sympathetic toward Diana, so lets call it "dramatic license"!

Charles spoke to the nurse personally. The Queen's inquiry was made through the British Consul's office. It's on page 10 and 11 of the book.

I believe that it's in the book. I just don't believe that it's true.

Amen to that! As with any war, it seems that truth is the first casualty!

For all the truely awful things said about how the Queen behaved after the death of Diana, not one credible source is has been given about any of her actions or conversations with any of the aforementioned "sources".