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

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by hel

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/RoyalReporter/st...49026322366465

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]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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]

Originally Posted by TLLK

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]

Originally Posted by royal rob

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

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]

Originally Posted by 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......

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

[suztav]

Originally Posted by royal rob

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]

Originally Posted by suztav

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]

Originally Posted by royal rob

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.