Last Hours, Death, Transfer from France, Funeral and Interment

[Dman]

Many people die young and younger than her.

She had no personal connection. The other royals did. Philip and Elizabeth went because it was their grandsons mother. Philip walked not out of respect for a woman who nearly destroyed their family in their minds, but in support of his grandsons. The other kids she was their aunt. That is a bond.

For Margaret she was her sisters ex daughter in law. There was no real relationship. Being the mother of her great nephews in itself doesn't automatically earn you resoect. Just because your son is the future king, doesn't mean people have to forget all you have done.

If Diana hadn't been the do called People's princess she would have had a private funeral, that a few royaks workd attend for the sake of her kids. Even as the mother of a future king. And no one would bat an eyelash at it.

If any Royal ex died tomorrow, would we expect a royal funeral with a huge Royal contingent? I highly doubt it.

Everything was different for Diana's passing. She was the former Princess of Wales, former future Queen, mother of the future King and pretty beloved by the people. This all put her death on another level.

Also, Diana did not nearly "destroy" the royal family. The family has been through much worser times than an publicized separation and divorce. The media hype made it seem like it was the end of days.

 

[Nico]

She was not a "royal ex" she was the mother of a future King. She had been part of their family for many years. She was enormously well loved. And yes when someone dies you "forget and forgive their faults" at least for the duration of the funeral....

Right. But i guess some members of the BRF felt they were a bit pushed into some very public display by Tony "people's princess" Blair.

 

[Dman]

Right. But i guess some members of the BRF felt they were a bit pushed into some very public display by Tony "people's princess" Blair.

People can say what they want about Tony Blair, but I think he put things just right at the time. I have a problem with the guy over the Iraq war, but he did what was right in the aftermath of Diana's passing.

 

[Nico]

People can say what they want about Tony Blair, but I think he put things just right at the time. I have a problem with the guy over the Iraq war, but he did what was right in the aftermath of Diana's passing.

I disagree. He acted like a politician, with opportunism. As such he went against the family wishes for a private mourning and offered, litteraly, a grieving BRF to the public.
At least they had their revenge when he was not invited to the Royal wedding in 2011...

 

[Dman]

I disagree. He acted like a politician, with opportunism. As such he went against the family wishes for a private mourning and offered, litteraly, a grieving BRF to the public.
At least they had their revenge when he was not invited to the Royal wedding in 2011...

There was a private mourning by the family. They paid their respects to Diana in private, but there had to be a public memorial. Diana was a popular senior royal for sixteen years, traveled around the world and touched many people's lives. The public wanted to pay tribute to her and they did so. The public also can back together to pay tribute to her during the tenth anniversary of her death with the concert and memorial service.

I don't think the royal family have anything against Blair over the funeral, but a lot of harsh feelings over the Iraq war.

 

[Denville]

I disagree. He acted like a politician, with opportunism. As such he went against the family wishes for a private mourning and offered, litteraly, a grieving BRF to the public.
At least they had their revenge when he was not invited to the Royal wedding in 2011...

what wishes for a private mourning? Di's family did wish for a private funeral but when they saw the crowds they realised that they could not deny the public a chance to say goodbye to Diana.. and that she was, as well as being their sister, a beloved public figure. THe RF didn't wish IMO for any mourning.. and if it hadn't been for Blair, they woud have been very very unpopular..

 

[Nico]

what wishes for a private mourning? Di's family did wish for a private funeral but when they saw the crowds they realised that they could not deny the public a chance to say goodbye to Diana.. and that she was, as well as being their sister, a beloved public figure. THe RF didn't wish IMO for any mourning.. and if it hadn't been for Blair, they woud have been very very unpopular..

So you're saying that the Spencers chose the public funerals ?
Now that's new !

 

[Denville]

I think that they felt that it was the only reasonable opton. and the RF realised that they had to be involved as they could organise a "state type " funeral based on plans for the Q Mother's funeral. I'd assume that Charles Spencer and Charles POW talked itover too.

 

[Dman]

Both the Spencer's and royal family thought of a private memorial service, but once they saw the public wanted to pay their respects too, the only option was to put together a major funeral service. It was the right way to go.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It wasn't what the public wanted but what the media were demanding.

When it was first announced that she had died the public blamed the media for her deaths with calls towards reporters etc at KP of 'killers' and 'murderers'.

The press was then faced with three options:

1. Do nothing and be blamed for her death with the resultant downturn in revenue
2. Turn the blame onto others - Diana herself for not wearing a seatbelt - couldn't do that as Blair had already hijacked the mourning with his 'People's Princess' comment and the public were taking him at his word
3. Blame the royal family who they knew would never fight back and so they turned the public against the BRF (and many have not come back since then). The media kept up the pressure on the BRF with the flag issue (a flag on BP never flies at half-mast - it didn't for George VI or George V or Edward VII or Victoria but the Queen was forced to allow it for Diana), the headlines of 'where is she' and photos of the Queen - who was doing what any good grandmother should have been doing - helping her grandsons cope with the death of their mother. Any other employer would have allowed a grandmother, in similar circumstances where the grandsons were staying with the grandmother and heard that their mother had died, to take a week to be with them but not the British and world press and the British public - they demanded that their needs were more important than the needs of William and Harry. I remember Philip's comment when they did return to London and someone in the crowd called out 'make sure you take care of those boys' and he came back with 'what do you think we have been doing?'

The press and the public were out of control and there were real fears that there would have been an attack - particularly on Charles - during the funeral.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of posts have been deleted as they were off-topic.

 

[Dman]

SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Feuds behind Diana's funeral | Daily Mail Online

New doc of Diana's passing.

 

[Dman]

I don't know why, when it comes to stories about Diana's life and passing, there's an incredible amount of lies involved. It's like she's been turned into a blank canvas; used for anyone to paint their hearts out.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, but I think that this was a continuation of how Diana was viewed during her life. This was especially true during her early years in the Royal Family. When she was with Charles on tours or on engagements at home, he made the speeches. People could see in her what they wanted to see, because we didn't know much about what she was like behind the scenes. It wasn't until Diana started making heart-felt speeches in the 90s--which were a bit too heart-felt at times--we didn't really know how she felt about things. That changed with the Panorama Interview.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yes, but I think that this was a continuation of how Diana was viewed during her life. This was especially true during her early years in the Royal Family. When she was with Charles on tours or on engagements at home, he made the speeches. People could see in her what they wanted to see, because we didn't know much about what she was like behind the scenes. It wasn't until Diana started making heart-felt speeches in the 90s--which were a bit too heart-felt at times--we didn't really know how she felt about things. That changed with the Panorama Interview.

When did the public 'know' (for certain, I know it was long speculated) that Diana was behind the Morton book? Because that was certainly Diana telling how she felt about things. I view that book as her first 'interview' that began the whole unravelling.

 

[Dman]

Yes, she had a bad marriage, but I don't think it excuse people from just lying about her and her death continuously. It's like people enjoy coming up with rumors about the lady.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Yes, she had a bad marriage, but I don't think it excuse people from just lying about her and her death continuously. It's like people enjoy coming up with rumors about the lady.

Whose doing that? Where is that happening? What's being said that are lies? Just wondering.

 

[Dman]

Whose doing that? Where is that happening? What's being said that are lies? Just wondering.

I'm talking about the many things that's been said over the years. The many books, tv shows, documentaries and movies. Let's not leave out the stuff people have written online too. I mean this woman's life and death has been turned into a blank piece of canvas. One can write and paint her in kind of way to ones heart desire. Truth is no longer there...unless ones family is speaking out.

 

[MARG]

Lady Nimue is correct, Diana: Her True Story was published in 1992 and after Diana's death it was re-released as "Diana: Her True Story In Her Own Words. Many of the things written in there were actually untrue as originally they were written by an angry spouse but embellished by an avaricious author. How many other authors got to flog the same book twice.

You can hardly blame the tabloids for following suit. But if I recall correctly from the time of Diana's death until her funeral I remember very public ill will between Charles Spencer and the BRF before any official announcements were made about the funeral, although I seem to remember some talk of a private "Family Funeral". Spencer family that is.

Do I believe he wanted to walk alone behind her coffin? Absolutely, after the fact that an official funeral was essential he still wanted it to be all about him and wouldn't he have looked tragic walking alone behind the coffin. Failing that, he took a cruel and vicious swipe at the BRF during the eulogy. It seemed that Charles was as unreasonable and unpredictable as Diana had ever been. His so-called Eulogy cemented that notion of spite more than anger or grief.

 

[Dman]

Lady Nimue is correct, Diana: Her True Story was published in 1992 and after Diana's death it was re-released as "Diana: Her True Story In Her Own Words. Many of the things written in there were actually untrue as originally they were written by an angry spouse but embellished by an avaricious author. How many other authors got to flog the same book twice.

You can hardly blame the tabloids for following suit. But if I recall correctly from the time of Diana's death until her funeral I remember very public ill will between Charles Spencer and the BRF before any official announcements were made about the funeral, although I seem to remember some talk of a private "Family Funeral". Spencer family that is.

Do I believe he wanted to walk alone behind her coffin? Absolutely, after the fact that an official funeral was essential he still wanted it to be all about him and wouldn't he have looked tragic walking alone behind the coffin. Failing that, he took a cruel and vicious swipe at the BRF during the eulogy. It seemed that Charles was as unreasonable and unpredictable as Diana had ever been. His so-called Eulogy cemented that notion of spite more than anger or grief.

Charles Spencer didn't want to walk behind his sisters ciffin so it could be all about him. It was a mutual decision within both families. He didnt take a swipe at the royal family during the service. He just spoke the truth about his dead big sister. It was a very emotional time for both families.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

At least Margaret was not hypocritical, unlike too many on that day.

So true!

 

[Denville]

Yes, but I think that this was a continuation of how Diana was viewed during her life. This was especially true during her early years in the Royal Family. When she was with Charles on tours or on engagements at home, he made the speeches. People could see in her what they wanted to see, because we didn't know much about what she was like behind the scenes. It wasn't until Diana started making heart-felt speeches in the 90s--which were a bit too heart-felt at times--we didn't really know how she felt about things. That changed with the Panorama Interview.

well Diana can't win, can she? when she didn't make speeches much, she was viewed as not very intelligent, when she did make speeches they are now judged as too heartfelt.

 

[Lady Nimue]

well Diana can't win, can she? when she didn't make speeches much, she was viewed as not very intelligent, when she did make speeches they are now judged as too heartfelt.

In a way, yes. But that's the way of the press. That's who she made her pact with, bottom line. I also think the 'too heartfelt' is referencing the overly personal admissions, heart-on-her-sleeve self-confessional-type moments. Diana did not have boundaries, that was both her tragedy and the aspect that endeared her to so many. She was 'sharing' with her public like a friend and they adored her for it, while others (like the tabloid press) reverted to stand-by British sensibilities to judge those moments. Can't win for losing should be a tabloid truism. (It certainly applies to Charles).

Off-topic: Diana's biggest mistake was that she lived her life through the lens of the camera and saw herself through her press clippings, a sad state of affairs for anyone.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

Off-topic: Diana's biggest mistake was that she lived her life through the lens of the camera and saw herself through her press clippings, a sad state of affairs for anyone.

That is a quite good summary of Diana's royal and post-royal life, I must say.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Maybe it's been discussed here already, from the recent documentary about events surrounding Diana's funeral:

Hidden turmoil behind Diana's funeral revealed in documentary - Lifestyle - NZ Herald News

Oh my! Most poignant of all was how the Duke of Edinburgh cried out with anguish during the phone conference:

"It's about the boys, they've lost their mother!" I recall how Philip encouraged William about walking behind the casket, and that he would join in walking with him and Harry to be supportive.

Understandably Charles, Earl Spencer was tense and angry about everything.

How heartbreaking that 12-year-old Prince Harry had begged his father that he wanted to go with him to Paris to accompany his mother's body back to Britain.

 

[Lady Nimue]

How heartbreaking that 12-year-old Prince Harry had begged his father that he wanted to go with him to Paris to accompany his mother's body back to Britain.

Such a needless tragedy. Too young, too soon, for anyone.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. That's what I meant.

I also think the 'too heartfelt' is referencing the overly personal admissions, heart-on-her-sleeve self-confessional-type moments. Diana did not have boundaries, that was both her tragedy and the aspect that endeared her to so many.

In retrospect, I prefer her pre-Settelen speeches: I get the sense that the later speeches were very much about herself. She was using the venue of a charity appearance to talk about her own problems--either directly or indirectly. She was reaching out to her public in the best way she knew how, asking for understanding and sympathy. However, that isn't the purpose of royal visits to charity. The purpose is to draw attention to the charity's cause and offer thanks on behalf of the nation for what the charity attempts to do.

I remember Diana with fondness. She was an important person to me during my 20s and early 30s. I think that she accomplished some very good things during her short life, in spite of her significant problems.

 

[Dman]

Exactly. That's what I meant.

In retrospect, I prefer her pre-Settelen speeches: I get the sense that the later speeches were very much about herself. She was using the venue of a charity appearance to talk about her own problems--either directly or indirectly. She was reaching out to her public in the best way she knew how, asking for understanding and sympathy. However, that isn't the purpose of royal visits to charity. The purpose is to draw attention to the charity's cause and offer thanks on behalf of the nation for what the charity attempts to do.

I remember Diana with fondness. She was an important person to me during my 20s and early 30s. I think that she accomplished some very good things during her short life, in spite of her significant problems.

Her focus and dedication was to her charities. She worked very hard on representing them and highlighting their causes. I think had she lived, we would've saw greater results of help on those many causes. The problem is with her very untimely passing, we didn't get a chance to see what she would've been able to do.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that when it came to things such as the landmine campaign, she was able to step outside of herself and really focus on the job at hand. It was the same with her work with sufferers of various diseases such as cancer, AIDS, leprosy, etc. It was more in her speeches about bulimia and depression that she seemed to inject too much of herself into her speeches. I didn't like her tone in those speeches, such as when she joked about "postponing" her "nervous breakdown to a more appropriate moment" That was simply self-centered. There was no need for her to reference the rumors about herself during the speech.

I respect the amount of charity work that Diana did. I think that it was important. That doesn't mean that I think she sometimes used her speeches to signal about how hard-done-by she was.

 

[Denville]

in that speech, Diana was replying to stories that she was going to give up her charity work because she had had a recurrence of bulimia.. She was clearly under a lot of strain and perhaps it would have been better for her to really give up her work for a bit but she didn't want to do that. So she made some slightly hysterical jokes about her "being ill" and having a nervous breakdown. It was perhaps foolish of her but given the strain she was under, I would not want to be too harsh on her. Problaby had she given up her wrok completely to focus on having therapy or a rest, her detractors would have attacked her for not doing any charity work