20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I believe that even if William and Harry hadn't been involved in the documentary program of their (generally happy and positive) memories of their mother, the press and opportunists would have still been crawling out of the woodwork to have their say. This anniversary was not going to pass by quietly.

I think William and Harry finally are enough at peace that they could share a little of their mother with us. Its really not that different than Charles sharing memories for the Queen's 90th birthday documentary.
 
1. As I said in post 411, this is not a criticism of the Diana documentary, but the programme (as cepe wrote) is (because of the participation of William/Harry) being used by Channel 4 as justification for transmitting private tapes of Diana and her voice coach.

2. We've also had the Channel 5 documentary ''7 Days That Shook The Windsors'' were so-called experts as Ingrid Seward attacked the royal family.

3. We've also heard from Diana's former bodyguard who said the following: ''If the Queen had insisted that she retain security then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because Diana, in my view, would have been alive today'', witch lead to headlines like this in Australia and other countrys: Diana's bodyguard blames Queen for her death.

4. And now we have her brother speaking out etc.

5. Nor does it surprise me if the press gets polls commissioned that ask? Was the royal family behind Diana's death? Should the Queen have left Balmoral sooner?

6. And all that could damage the monarchy to its bones.

7. The Ipsos Mori polls has asked this question 27 times from 1993 to 2016 - Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy? And it has never been under 70%, expept in 2005 when Charles married Camilla. It would not surprise me if that happens this year too.

8. YouGov had the support for the monarchy in in the high 60s during the 2000s and at 69% for the Wedding, 73% for the Jubilee and 71% last year. It would not surprise me if it goes under 60% after the anniversary.

9. And the interesting part is - will the media attack our 91-year-old Queen again for staying at Balmoral with the boys or will they defend her (as they did during the diamond Jubilee) for taking family before duty for the first time in her life.
 
Oz Diana fans -

There are now several hard-cover commemorative magazines appearing on the supermarket shelves - "Hello", "Yours" and "New Idea" so far, all full of wonderful photos covering Diana's life.
 
1. As I said in post 411, this is not a criticism of the Diana documentary, but the programme (as cepe wrote) is (because of the participation of William/Harry) being used by Channel 4 as justification for transmitting private tapes of Diana and her voice coach.
1. Would more than likely still have been shown/heard as being relative to Diana's life and justified being of interest because of her death anniversary.
2. We've also had the Channel 5 documentary ''7 Days That Shook The Windsors'' were so-called experts as Ingrid Seward attacked the royal family.
2. Ditto #1
3. We've also heard from Diana's former bodyguard who said the following: ''If the Queen had insisted that she retain security then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because Diana, in my view, would have been alive today'', witch lead to headlines like this in Australia and other countrys: Diana's bodyguard blames Queen for her death.
3. Been there done that, just a rehash because of the anniversary.
4. And now we have her brother speaking out etc.
4. Odds are he would have been interviewed anyway.
5. Nor does it surprise me if the press gets polls commissioned that ask? Was the royal family behind Diana's death? Should the Queen have left Balmoral sooner?
5. Again, same old, same old.
6. And all that could damage the monarchy to its bones.
6. There is nothing new and shocking being said, they're just dredging up the same drivel. The monarchy weathered it 20 years ago and should be able to again. This time the public isn't shocked and grieving.
7. The Ipsos Mori polls has asked this question 27 times from 1993 to 2016 - Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy? And it has never been under 70%, expept in 2005 when Charles married Camilla. It would not surprise me if that happens this year too.

8. YouGov had the support for the monarchy in in the high 60s during the 2000s and at 69% for the Wedding, 73% for the Jubilee and 71% last year. It would not surprise me if it goes under 60% after the anniversary.
8. Hmm, we'll see.
9. And the interesting part is - will the media attack our 91-year-old Queen again for staying at Balmoral with the boys or will they defend her (as they did during the diamond Jubilee) for taking family before duty for the first time in her life.
9. Hopefully the Queen won't be dragged into this again. I blame Tony Blair.
Replies in purple above.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I have seen "Diana, Our Mother". It was more a tribute by the two sons than a documentary: their mother's praise was sung (understandably). Nothing new was told but it was nice to see the images. The two Bosnian men who saw Diana "more recently than I" were impressive.

That little island in the oval lake at Althorp is dreamy but that "temple" was a sore in the eye, I am sorry to say. Am I right that originally there was a big marble vase on the island and the "temple" is a later addition? From what I could see the materials used for the "temple" and the execution of the work, as well that lightblue oval with Diana's profile was bordering Edelkitsch... Diana deserved better, in my personal opinion.

Nice documentary and for once with the captions right ("HRH The Duke of Cambridge", "The Rt. Hon. The Earl Spencer").
 
Last edited:
Earl Spencer is a historian. He has written quite a lot of history books. To him, maybe what matter most is how the history will be correctly recorded. According to himself, the very reason he would appear in this TV program is because after 20 years, Diana had transformed from a contemporary figure into a historical figure, so it is time to set the record straight.

As a historian himself, if he thought there had been a lot of nonsense out there about him or his words, he would be more concerned or sensitive about this.

Of course some people would interpret his action as an act of blaming the Royal family. But people nowadays have a very short memory. They will forget this very soon. I don't think a serious historian would take this speculation of his motivation too serious

What matter most is, he had spoken out and set the record straight. When future historian study this event, Earl Spencer's own words will be the main reference to them.
 
"I talk about Granny Diana constantly." Ugh. Poor George and Charlotte. That doesn't sound healthy to me. Let's hope there's some exaggeration at play here. I can't imagine having a parent obsessively living in the past, to the point that they talk about it "constantly", and they want it to be the last thing I think about before I go to sleep each night. :ermm:

It's a good thing the kids have Catherine and I hope she's the dominant influence in their lives.

What's not healthy about being told they have another Granny who loves them but lives in the sky (or where ever)?

I think "obsessively living in the past" because he talks to his children about Granny Diana is a bit of an exaggeration?

Yes, from what I've read about Prince William first meeting Catherine's family, he has an enormous amount of respect and enduring love for them. He fell in love with his wife's family as much as he fell in love with her. He has spoken of seeing Pop Middleton as such a strong, steady and guiding influence for the entire Middleton family and for himself as well. Which once again is not a knock on his own father.

There have been a number of instances during the latter years of the boy/girl friend relationship where William had been reportedly heard to jokingly call Michael "Dad".

I do wonder if his own parents marriage had worked out and he didn't crave a "normal" family environment, would he and Kate have ended up together?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice documentary and for once with the captions right ("HRH The Duke of Cambridge", "The Rt. Hon. The Earl Spencer").

Yes, but they made a mistake in their reference to "Lord Victor Adebowale". As a life peer and baron in his own right, he should have been cited as "The Rt. Hon. The Lord Adebowale". Instead, he was cited as a cadet son of a duke or marquess (i.e. Lord + [given name] + [family name]).


As for the documentary itself, I wasn't impressed. Most of it was well-known footage and the usual comments one would expect from the princes and Diana's friends. Unlike other posters, I don't see those kinds of TV documentaries having a negative impact on the British monarchy either, except on Charles (and, Camilla) personally; the Queen is in a whole different league, and William, who is the real future of the monarchy, will probably improve his popularity after that.
 
Last edited:
Earl Spencer is a pompous twit that needs to be reminded of one simple lesson in life: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,"

:bang:
 
Earl Spencer is a pompous twit that needs to be reminded of one simple lesson in life: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,"

:bang:

Yes! :flowers:

So many hypocrites coming out of the woodwork.
Look at Jephson, attacking the RF for not respecting Diana, just so he can shill for his new book!

(Never mind how the first book trashed Diana).
 
Earl Spencer is a pompous twit that needs to be reminded of one simple lesson in life: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,"

:bang:

You wanted him to say something nice about being told his nephews wanted to walk behind their mother's coffin, when they really didn't want to?
 
You wanted him to say something nice about being told his nephews wanted to walk behind their mother's coffin, when they really didn't want to?



We don't know the true story. Harry talking about it 20 years later maybe different from 1997 Harry was telling his family. William was the one that was previously reported as being hesitant and then he agreed after Philip agreed to walk with him when Philip wasn't initially walking.
 
I suspect if one asked four or five members of ANY Family to recall the feelings or motivation of any one of them during a MAJOR Family crisis 20 years past, one would get MANY varied versions.

Another reason why 'raking over the Coals' of the late Princess' death was CERTAIN to result in 'point scoring' and acrimony...
 
Last edited:
Exactly Wyevale. It was a bad idea, the documentary It cuodl have been doene without dragging up old upsets and quarrels - it could have been a tribute to Diana as a mother and as a charity worker, and they could have spoken of their love for her, their grief and how they wnantted to continue with her work for people in need but they seem to have gone into sadnesses that are best left in the past..and left it open to others to bring up old issues that wold probably be best left behind for many more years.
 
Earl Spencer is a pompous twit that needs to be reminded of one simple lesson in life: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,"

:bang:

that would rather limit conversation and history wouldn't it?
there is a time and a place for saying "unkind things". if Charles S wanted to write an autobiography later in life, and bring up these issues, that IMO would be the way to make his views known, years later when Diana's boys are granddads and passions have cooled...
 
We don't know the true story. Harry talking about it 20 years later maybe different from 1997 Harry was telling his family. William was the one that was previously reported as being hesitant and then he agreed after Philip agreed to walk with him when Philip wasn't initially walking.

Exactly. If he hadn't walked behind the coffin, he would probably regret it today in a similar way not having walked the last way together with his mother but leaving her alone, cursing himself that he couldn't do it. It was an impossible situation, not only for a child but imo the right thing to do. Either way it would always be hurtful.
 
We don't know the true story. Harry talking about it 20 years later maybe different from 1997 Harry was telling his family. William was the one that was previously reported as being hesitant and then he agreed after Philip agreed to walk with him when Philip wasn't initially walking.

No, we don't the full details on how everything went down, but we do know Harry has expressed his disagreement on the decision and William wasn't onboard until his grandfather decided to accompany him.

No one should be coming down hard on Earl Spencer on being misled by palace officials on the matter.

For 20 years I personally thought William and Harry walking behind their mother's coffin was incredibly brave, but now we're getting the hint that things weren't all that oke-doke on the idea.
 
of course it could not be easy for them.. but IMO it was the right thing for Will at least to do.. he was old enough IMO to pay that tribute to his mother of being with her to the end of her journey. He says he regretted that he and H cut short their last phone call to her because they wanted to go out and have fun...how would he feel if he hadn't done that walk? I think very poorly of Spencer for dragging this up, and the boys IMO should not have raised the issues because it is in the past and controversial.. and by bringing it up they are raising upsets In their family...
 
of course it could not be easy for them.. but IMO it was the right thing for Will at least to do.. he was old enough IMO to pay that tribute to his mother of being with her to the end of her journey. He says he regretted that he and H cut short their last phone call to her because they wanted to go out and have fun...how would he feel if he hadn't done that walk? I think very poorly of Spencer for dragging this up, and the boys IMO should not have raised the issues because it is in the past and controversial.. and by bringing it up they are raising upsets In their family...

No one in the family will be upset by any of this, Danville. William and Harry and Earl Spencer are allowed to have their feeling expressed on the issue. I don't think they are mad about it, but just disagree on the idea on reflection.

I used to think it was the right move as her family and it's a tradition for the royals to walk in major funeral processions. They just didn't feel it was the right move due to their grief and with the whole world on their backs.
 
How do you know? Look at all the disagreements this Programme has sprarked off here. If there were really problems and tensions about the funeral among the 2 families at the time.. and I'm sure there were, as funerals can bring painful emotions to the fore...I would say that this programme is bound to raise painful memories among W and H's relatives...
 
No one should be coming down hard on Earl Spencer on being misled by palace officials on the matter.

Pre-supposing one believes him.. but I do NOT.
 
I don't know exactly.. I Don't think thtat the boys were forced into it.. perhaps persuaded...I don't believe that Philip would allow them to be seriously pushed and I woud believe that he said to Will that he'd regret it if he didn't do the walk. I think that Charles S was very much agianst the idea, so perhaps he was told that the boys were OK with it, when in fact they were nervous. But I think that Phil would not have wanted Will and Harry to do it if they were really scared or unhappy and if they had really been unable to face it they would have been lef out.
 
How do you know? Look at all the disagreements this Programme has sprarked off here. If there were really problems and tensions about the funeral among the 2 families at the time.. and I'm sure there were, as funerals can bring painful emotions to the fore...I would say that this programme is bound to raise painful memories among W and H's relatives...

There nothing there to make the families upset, Denville. The program 'Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy' was made by her family and friends to reflect on their precious memories of her and her lasting legacy. Nothing about it was an attack on anyone. Its people on the net that has decided to turn such a touching documentary into something bad and PR nightmare for the royal family.

I think people have to stop making it seem like everything and anything to do with Diana is an attack on the royal family. Diana has never been a threat to the royal family when she was alive and she's not a threat to the royal family in death.

Diana was a wife, mother, sister, friend and royal humanitarian. Her loved ones and the world lost a beautiful person nearly 20 years ago. We should be using the anniversary of her passing to reflect on the precious memories of her life and the many charitable causes she cared so deeply about. Not allowing the media to turn this anniversary into a PR problem. It's totally far from it.
 
of couse Diana was a threat to the RF...
 
To me the idea of the Princes 'walking behind the Coffin' has ALL the hallmarks of Tony Blair's 'Sofa Government'.. {Democratic, down with the kids, approachable, 'Peoples Princess' populist baloney}
It didn't come from HMQ, nor the POW.. or the Spencer's .The DoE ' went along with it' but it doesn't strike me as his sort of idea. Not 'the Household' nor the Private Secretary either..[who KNOW their Sovereign and what she wants].

Along with another of 'Tony's' ideas, it proved to be a BAD one.
 
Last edited:
of couse Diana was a threat to the RF...

No, she wasn't. The media built it up as if She was a threat, but she wasn't. She and her husband went through a bad separation and divorce. The media used their personal issues as a soap opera and made it seem like the House of Windsor was going to fall. None of that was true. It's going to take a great deal to make that happen.

We have to stop making it seem like the subject of Diana and anything to do with her family talking about her is something that neeeds to be shut down and never spoken of again.
 
Exactly. They had spent the week protecting those children from the media in Balmoral. To force them to be on public display doesn't seem to be something that would have been pushed by their grandparents. Someone has posted that it has the hallmarks of a Tony Blair-ish media event. That makes sense to me.


But I think that Phil would not have wanted Will and Harry to do it if they were really scared or unhappy and if they had really been unable to face it they would have been lef out.
 
You guys do know the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household and his office is what arranges the royal funerals. The Earl of Airlie at the time. Tony Blair had nothing to do with it.
 
What's not healthy about being told they have another Granny who loves them but lives in the sky (or where ever)?

I think "obsessively living in the past" because he talks to his children about Granny Diana is a bit of an exaggeration?
I totally agree. when you stop remembering the person htat has passed away, and stop talking about them is when they truly die.
It's always healthy for the person to talk about them and share their memories, that way the children grow up "knowing" this person (in a certain way) and know it's ok to ask questions.
Personal example: Both my brothers have passed away. my middle brother was 29 when he passed away. I had my daughter in 1999 and my brother passed in 1993. we, my parents and I, have talked so much about him, that she "knows" him. She also knows that she can ask questions about him without us getting upset or cry or depressed. It helps sharing the memories and it helps in the healing process. my 2nd brother passed in 2013. By talking about my 1st brother, and being exposed to "memories" my daughter was able to go thru the grieving process a little easier than not having been exposed.
So personally: "obsessively living in the past" is a bit harsh. We each grieve differently and in different times. Their are no rules for this and we should not judge each other.
The way I see W & H's documentary, is 2 MEN sharing their memories with the world on a mother who was lost to them when they were BOYS. All the other crap coming out because of her anniversary is just that: crap, and totally irrelevant. Just the same old drivel from the same old mouths, hoping to make a quick buck or get another 15 min in the spot light. To me, that's the sad part.
 
the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household and his office is what arranges the royal funerals

ANY Brit will tell you that Messrs Blair and Campbell paid NO attention to such niceties during their period of office.. NO Civil Servant or Courtier was beyond the reach of their power. Especially in that panic-stricken post accident period...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom