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

[TLLK]

Since, according to Richard Palmer, the interviews for all three (2 documentaries + Newsweek) were done in March, I disagree that the BBC one is damage control.

I think it's more likely that:

• in the ITV documentary they had control over they feared to antagonize people by mentioning Charles in a Diana hagiography,
• in the Newsweek article, Harry simply didn't have editorial control -- there's no way to know whether or not he said something about Charles and it wasn't used.

https://twitter.com/x/status/900249026322366465

Richard Palmer‏Verified account @RoyalReporter 5h5 hours ago
More
For those asking, I'm told all three sets of William and Harry interviews - ITV, BBC, and Newsweek - were done around the same time in March

Thank you hel for finding this information regarding the brothers' interviews.

 

[Pranter]

The members of the press/media etc...should count themselves very fortunate for any cooperation given to them by William and Harry.



LaRae

 

[ladongas]

Exactly - this is too little too late. The damage to Charles has been done and if they had a brain between them these nearly middle-aged men would have realised that impact that they would be having on their father and his reputation and popularity. They simply don't care about him and this is simply damage control done as a reaction to the really negative press Charles has been receiving - no doubt they were ordered to say something positive about their father.

Isn't this assessment a bit harsh?

 

[Pranter]

I'd say more than 'a bit'.


LaRae

 

[tommy100]

Thank you hel for finding this information regarding the brothers' interviews.

If they were all done at the same time than it could be they didn't realise perhaps that they hadn't mentioned Charles or the Queen in all the interviews. By this I mean all 3 probably mould into one long interview in their minds so if they mentioned Charles and the Queen in the BBC one and it filmed first they might not have twigged how it would be perceived.

However, if the BBC interview was filmed after the other were broadcast then it does appear to be damage limitation IMO.

 

[Pranter]

IIRC they were done back in March..or at least I read something that said that's when they were done.


LaRae

 

[ladongas]

People read too much into things and throw around accusations for the sake of it.

The press? Or members of.... this board?

 

[Dman]

William did say in the GQ interview that the media want the same kind of drama from the past. Nothing would please the media more if there was major friction between Charles and his sons. They would get tons of mileage out of a story like that.

 

[Skippyboo]

William did say in the GQ interview that the media want the same kind of drama from the past. Nothing would please the media more if there was major friction between Charles and his sons. They would get tons of mileage out of a story like that.

They don't have any good juicy stories like when York, Wales and Phillips marriages were failing. No pictures of Kate get her toes sucked by another guy. No secret love child or taped phone calls. The Cambridges are boring now but they still have the loved up body language so they can't really speculate that there is trouble other than blowing the dad dancing video way out of proportion.

Charles is the easiest target to paint as the villain when it comes to W&H.

 

[irish_royalist]

There we go :

Charles 'was there for us' when Diana died, Prince Harry says - ITV News

Quote :

Prince William said: “It was a very hard decision for my grandmother to make. She felt very torn between being the grandmother to William and Harry and her Queen role. And I think everyone was surprised and taken aback by the scale of what happened and the nature of how quickly it all happened plus the fact that she [Diana] was, or had been, challenging the Royal Family for many years beforehand.”

Lady Sarah McCorquodale told the programme that “if you were the grandmother of a 12 year old and a 15 year old whose mother had just been killed in a car crash, she [the Queen] did absolutely the right thing.”

Lady Sarah added: “Why would you bring them to London? Why don’t you let them get over the start of the shock in the bosom of their family?”


End of......

 

[Dman]

They don't have any good juicy stories like when York, Wales and Phillips marriages were failing. No pictures of Kate get her toes sucked by another guy. No secret love child or taped phone calls. The Cambridges are boring now but they still have the loved up body language so they can't really speculate that there is trouble other than blowing the dad dancing video way out of proportion.

Charles is the easiest target to paint as the villain when it comes to W&H.

It all make my blood boil though. I really dislike people using Diana to abuse Charles and trying raise friction between the the princes she left behind.tje media is doing this and folks online. I think it's very sick.

 

[Dman]

All the scheduled TV Specials on Diana-
Princess Diana: A guide to all the anniversary specials

 

[royal rob]

There we go :



Charles 'was there for us' when Diana died, Prince Harry says - ITV News



Quote :



Prince William said: “It was a very hard decision for my grandmother to make. She felt very torn between being the grandmother to William and Harry and her Queen role. And I think everyone was surprised and taken aback by the scale of what happened and the nature of how quickly it all happened plus the fact that she [Diana] was, or had been, challenging the Royal Family for many years beforehand.”



Lady Sarah McCorquodale told the programme that “if you were the grandmother of a 12 year old and a 15 year old whose mother had just been killed in a car crash, she [the Queen] did absolutely the right thing.”



Lady Sarah added: “Why would you bring them to London? Why don’t you let them get over the start of the shock in the bosom of their family?”





End of......

But she took them to church hours after being told their mother died in full view of media.

 

[suztav]

But she took them to church hours after being told their mother died in full view of media.

And if she had gone to church without them the media would have accused her of abandoning them.

Give me a break! JMHO

 

[royal rob]

And if she had gone to church without them the media would have accused her of abandoning them.

Give me a break! JMHO

No she wouldn't , even better no one go I'm sure the minister would go to them to help them.
Give me a break

 

[Skippyboo]

When is going to church after something bad has occurred such a terrible thing. The whole of the U.K. press corps was not hanging ourself Crathie Kirk. It was probably a small media presence. We get pictures of the royals going to church every week when the Queen is Balmoral or Sandringham

 

[royal rob]

Have a look at their faces and tell me we needed to see that. Anyway we all have different views. I think it was wrong

 

[Osipi]

Frankly, I've been seeing discussions of the interviews as being damaging to Charles as pure hogwash. If William and Harry omitted slinging platitudes of praise about their father doing interviews on memories of their mother, it was done subconsciously as I believe they were compartmentalizing.

When William is being interviewed about United for Wildlife or Harry about the Invictus Games, they're not going to start speaking out about William's work with EAAA or Harry's Sentebale in Lesotho but stick to the script talking exclusively about what the subject matter is. In this case, it was their mother.

I think too that should the boys have stated things like "My mother would do (fill in the blanks) but then my father would (fill in the blanks) or "My father was severely at a loss of what to do when my mother died", the media would have found a way to twist and turn those statements into a recap of the War of the Wales too. That was their aim. To cause dissension. William and Harry couldn't have said anything that wouldn't have been twisted to suit the media that likes to pander to people that want dissension.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that everyone in the Windsor side of the family pulled together as a whole to surround William and Harry with love, support and understanding when this tragedy occured and have stuck by these two men ever since. Charles, William and Harry may not always be in each other's back pockets but there is no indication to me that there is any kind of discord between them.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Re: church, well, I think it was wrong for the press to cover them going to church at the time.

The Queen, as head of the COE (not to mention what I think is a very strong personal faith) should be showing/leading her family (future KOE and his brother) that in time of need, church is an excellent place to go to reflect and seek wisdom/help/grace.

As opposed to the press, thinking "great money shot" in the same way the paps hung in that underpass and took photos of the Princess as she was dying.

It would be convenient but cowardly to say "We will pray at home, because of the paps."
JMO

Edit - and to be fair to the press, of course, they went to Balmoral, expecting a statement. My issue would be that they did not stick to a statement, but took pictures of the family instead

 

[O-H Anglophile]

But she took them to church hours after being told their mother died in full view of media.

Given the Queen's deep faith, church would be a natural place for her to believe one would go after a death. Especially if one always goes to church when at Balmoral. I doubt they thought there would be more than the usual limited media hanging about. They generally only get coming or going photos.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Charles, William and Harry may not always be in each other's back pockets but there is no indication to me that there is any kind of discord between them.

I agree. These are three adult men who have their own lives, their own charities, events, interests, friends... Harry is courting, William has a young family and Charles has a wife. It is ridiculous to think that because they don't give us happy family photo ops there is discord.

 

[cepe]

Given the Queen's deep faith, church would be a natural place for her to believe one would go after a death. Especially if one always goes to church when at Balmoral. I doubt they thought there would be more than the usual limited media hanging about. They generally only get coming or going photos.

This is normal behaviour when at Balmoral - all staying there go to church. No reason to think she strong armed them.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

This is normal behaviour when at Balmoral - all staying there go to church. No reason to think she strong armed them.

No I don't think they were forced to go--it was the customary practice to attend service on Sunday morning and probably it was just natural and a fragment of normal to attend church that day. But if the Queen did think about it she probably thought church would be a good place to be because of her strong faith.

 

[Osipi]

Going to church the morning after receiving the news of Diana's death was, to me, the most appropriate thing to do. Not only because of the Queen's deep faith but when crisis hits, there is strength to be found in a place of worship and prayer.

Its very normal for people to exclaim "OMG!" when things happen either good or bad but to a lot of people its just an exclamation. I think one of the things that happened at Balmoral immediately after Diana's death was that they all tried to support the boys by maintaining a sense of normalcy as in keeping active going out stalking and such and going to church was a part of that. They didn't want the boys to just sit there wallowing in misery but rather keeping active while reflecting on their loss within the seclusion of the family. They also removed TV and radio from easy access to shelter the boys even more from what was then pretty much 24/7 coverage.

I cannot fault the measures that the Windsor family took to support and console William and Harry during this time. The family was there for them and that's what they needed the most at the time.

 

[TLLK]

I think one of the things that happened at Balmoral immediately after Diana's death was that they all tried to support the boys by maintaining a sense of normalcy as in keeping active going out stalking and such and going to church was a part of that. They didn't want the boys to just sit there wallowing in misery but rather keeping active while reflecting on their loss within the seclusion of the family. They also removed TV and radio from easy access to shelter the boys even more from what was then pretty much 24/7 coverage.

I cannot fault the measures that the Windsor family took to support and console William and Harry during this time. The family was there for them and that's what they needed the most at the time.

I wholeheartedly agree that keeping them active, surrounded by family and maintaining their normal routine as much as possible was the right decision to take. It's fortunate that they were not living in an era in which the internet would be available on a small mobile device.

 

[MARG]

It all make my blood boil though. I really dislike people using Diana to abuse Charles and trying raise friction between the the princes she left behind.tje media is doing this and folks online. I think it's very sick.

I think you called this one correctly. We each bring our own prejudices to the way we see things.

In the BBC interview, they said their father helped them so much, sympathised with their father having to be the one to break the news to them and wondering how he did it. Qualifying that by referring to him dealing with his own grief at the same time.

There are so many that believe in hate camps and would have shouted down the possibility of Charles even caring, yet his sons were there and they know what happened, what they saw and felt much as it goes against the grain of many peoples ideas of the last 20 years.

As to these posters still faulting HM for taking the boys to church, in the first place we don't know that she made them do anything. They may have just sought solace in the routine of their lives. But HM is a woman of deep faith . . . where else would she be? I know how devasted I was when my father died when I was 14 and you better believe that God was my first call and Church was the first place I went for undisturbed solace.

I would wish that having watched the documentaries that people would stop treating Charles like he is evil personified that is incapable of doing any good. Of all the faults he may or may not have, his sons have acquitted him of spite and neglect.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Frankly, I've been seeing discussions of the interviews as being damaging to Charles as pure hogwash. If William and Harry omitted slinging platitudes of praise about their father doing interviews on memories of their mother, it was done subconsciously as I believe they were compartmentalizing.

When William is being interviewed about United for Wildlife or Harry about the Invictus Games, they're not going to start speaking out about William's work with EAAA or Harry's Sentebale in Lesotho but stick to the script talking exclusively about what the subject matter is. In this case, it was their mother.

I think too that should the boys have stated things like "My mother would do (fill in the blanks) but then my father would (fill in the blanks) or "My father was severely at a loss of what to do when my mother died", the media would have found a way to twist and turn those statements into a recap of the War of the Wales too. That was their aim. To cause dissension. William and Harry couldn't have said anything that wouldn't have been twisted to suit the media that likes to pander to people that want dissension.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that everyone in the Windsor side of the family pulled together as a whole to surround William and Harry with love, support and understanding when this tragedy occured and have stuck by these two men ever since. Charles, William and Harry may not always be in each other's back pockets but there is no indication to me that there is any kind of discord between them.

The doubts arose because the princes themselves said they weren't given any support to deal with their mothers' death. Now they are saying the family was there for them - which is it - no support or support?

These are conflicting statements - so they lied in one of them - but which one - the 'no support in coping' or 'had support'.

What about Harry - 'no child should have to walk behind the coffin' or 'glad I walked behind the coffin' - which is the truth? Again one is a lie but which one.

Sorry - I can no longer believe either of them as they have been shown to be liars during these interviews with saying one thing in one interview and the opposite now.

 

[Curryong]

Surely the media questioned the Church appearance at Balmoral at the time more because the minister did not mention the Princess of Wales, did not ask for prayers for her to be given and kept a (inappropriate) joke in his sermon which he had written before the news came?

Later on he stated that neither the RF nor their officials had asked for any change in the service, ie a prayer for the princes' mother to be included. I remember it was that which was criticised rather than the boys going to church per se, though they were photographed in the car, which must have been unpleasant.

It's fine IMO that they went to church but the minister could have kept it short, and prayed for Diana.

On Twitter people are speculating that Clarence House has it fingerprints all over this latest interview, even if they were all done in March.

 

[Osipi]

My thoughts are that perhaps by stating "no support" they were referring to the support and counseling that is more prominent today when dealing with trauma issues and its mental repercussions. With their experiences campaigning for mental health, the differences between support now and 20 years ago probably stands out.

To be honest, I don't think they meant to include their family in that group of "no support" but rather figured that the world knew and saw that their father and their family were there for them 100% because basically, that's what families do and it did get them through this terrible time.

That's my take on it anyways. I do not believe they were throwing stones at their own family whatsoever.

 

[royal rob]

Seems strange , no mention of Charles there was a big sook ! Now we have more and a mention about him. I think it was all filmed in march but some bits that didn't make the first cut are now added ! Was there pressure from above ??