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

[Osipi]

Regardless of what the impact of Diana's sudden death was on people, the fact remains that it was an event that permanently stamped itself on the psych of the world at that time.

Whether one is a devoted Diana fan or someone that sees her as a very troubled person, one thing remains very clear here too. Regardless of how we perceive Diana and her life and times, she made such an impact on all of us to the point where we took the time and the effort to know more about her. That continues to this day and all the discussions and threads about Diana prove that.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes. One doesn't have to be a "fan" to realize that Diana was a phenomenon who will be discussed for awhile yet by her contemporaries and then by historians looking back at her.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Regardless of what the impact of Diana's sudden death was on people, the fact remains that it was an event that permanently stamped itself on the psych of the world at that time.

Whether one is a devoted Diana fan or someone that sees her as a very troubled person, one thing remains very clear here too. Regardless of how we perceive Diana and her life and times, she made such an impact on all of us to the point where we took the time and the effort to know more about her. That continues to this day and all the discussions and threads about Diana prove that.

Some devoted fans also see her as a very troubled person. Me, for example. Just because someone is famous/wonderful/engaging/energizing/beautiful/famous/accomplished/successful, it does not mean that they cannot also be seriously troubled.
A bit off topic, but something like 20% of "successful" CEOs and similar leaders also display a psychopathic personality. I've known many highly functioning addicts in my life. In fact, we all struggle, we all succeed, we all stumble and we all persevere. Sometimes we simply cope, sometimes we implode and sometimes we shine. It's the nature of humanity. And also, I think that's the premise behind the work that Wills, Kate and Harry are doing with Mental Illness issues. JMO.

 

[Curryong]

the flwwoers were used as compost to grow more flowers and the toys were given to hosptials.

Thanks Denville, I'd forgotten, though I have to say that some of the little toys I saw in the mounds were getting a bit worse for wear by the end!

 

[COUNTESS]

Some devoted fans also see her as a very troubled person. Me, for example. Just because someone is famous/wonderful/engaging/energizing/beautiful/famous/accomplished/successful, it does not mean that they cannot also be seriously troubled.
A bit off topic, but something like 20% of "successful" CEOs and similar leaders also display a psychopathic personality. I've known many highly functioning addicts in my life. In fact, we all struggle, we all succeed, we all stumble and we all persevere. Sometimes we simply cope, sometimes we implode and sometimes we shine. It's the nature of humanity. And also, I think that's the premise behind the work that Wills, Kate and Harry are doing with Mental Illness issues. JMO.

Perhaps. Charles could be equated in the same vein. Diana was troubled. Perhaps, because of a disturbing living situation.

 

[camelot23ca]

I expect we'll see a lot of grief when this Queen passes, too. The only people who would remember George VI's time would be about 70 and older now. It will be a different kind of mourning than there was for Diana, but it still will be intense. I think that I shall be very sad indeed.

I think there will be a huge amount of grief when this Queen dies and people will know that it's an end of an era. She's iconic. For many people all over the world "The Queen" is synonymous with QEII. I agree the days and weeks after her death will be very intense and I'll be sad to see her go, too. That being said, her death won't be a shock, and it won't be tragic, which is what distinguishes Diana's passing, IMO.

I had no strong feelings either way about Diana when she was alive but she was a uniquely larger than life phenomenon for all of my childhood and adolescence and I remember being stunned when she died.

 

[Denville]

I'm not sure. I think the queen is deservedly quite popular but if she makes it to nearly 100, it will be sad to lose her, but one can't ask for much more than 90 or100 years. Diana's death was tragically young and she was killed in a horrible crash.. it was unexpected and avoidable. so it is very very sad and tragic.

Perhaps. Charles could be equated in the same vein. Diana was troubled. Perhaps, because of a disturbing living situation.

I don't think so. Diana had real psychological problems, I think they were "set free" by her marriage, because of the massive strain of becoming Royal, being adored by the public but not by her husband, etc. Perhaps if she had had a quiet life, lived in Kensington for another few years, and found a husband who would offer her a comfortable private safe life, she would have been prone to the odd bout of depression, but not more than that. Charles has his gloomy side, but I don't know of him cutting himself, having eating issues or any of Di's issues.

 

[Osipi]

Everybody on the planet has psychological issues to some extent. Its all part and parcel of our makeup. From little phobias to neuroses to character defects. Most of us recognize and deal with them and some of them even make us quirky and unique. Its part of being human and Diana was no exception.

A lot of things about Diana would have remained the same no matter where she had gone in life. Situations amplify problems but most times they were there to begin with. As none of us really knew Diana intimately, we can only go by what other people have related that she was like.

Diana's death was a shocking tragedy that hit people between the eyes as they woke up to their morning news. When the Queen passes, I think there will be extreme sadness and the realization that an era has passed but it'll be a more sedate, quiet mourning and a great outpouring of tribute to a woman that has defined the word "Queen" over an extensive lifetime.

 

[Denville]

wel that's my point. I think she had some problems that really needed help from medical or therapeutic personnel, not just the sort of depression that we all get at times or the quirks that we can live with. but I think if she had not had the high stress life, she might not have developed all the things that she had like bulimia, very bad for a time or self harming.
There doesn't seem to be evidence of her having the bulimia prior to her marriage. or the cutting herself. so I think if she's married someone ordinary maybe she might have had bad bout of post natal depression, an needed therapy for it or someitng like thtat, but I am not sure the more extreme forms of problems would have developed.
She was vulnerable, and I think that that's what made people care for her and be touched that in spite of her own problems She DID still try to reach out ot others and show them kindness and affection. I honestly don't see that sort of warmth in the queen, though she's a fine woman, but I don't think her death will bring about such public sadness.

 

[Curryong]

In light of a little debate that was going on earlier on the Harry general news thread about Harry's feelings regarding walking behind the cortège (he's said in a very recent interview that he doesn't feel that any child should have been made to do that) I went back to Penny Junor's biography of Harry 'Prince Harry, Brother, Soldier, Son' to see what she wrote about the arrangements for the boys to walk. (I chose Junor as it is said that she has close contacts among Prince Charles's circle, though I have three other biographies of Harry.)

She writes in the relevant chapter 'The Long Walk', that Charles Spencer initially wanted to walk behind the cortège on his own. Prince Charles wished to join him and he felt, according to Junor, that his children 'should be able to walk if they so chose; he felt it might help the grieving process.'

In the meantime Downing St was suggesting a 'People's Funeral' with the public following the cortège. According to Junor Prince Charles and Earl Spencer 'got into a bitter war of words about it' but the matter was pretty well settled when Prince Philip said that he would walk. (There are other sources I've read, not Junor's, that William didn't want to do it, and Prince Philip said the choice was his but he might regret it later if he didn't, and would he do so if he, Philip, joined him?)

Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's Press Secretary, claimed in his published diaries, 'The Blair Years' that Sandy Henney (Prince Charles's Press Secretary 1993-2000) had been asked by Charles to persuade his sons to walk with him as he was anxious about being attacked by the public.

Sandy Henney utterly repudiated that, according to Junor. She did state that there was indeed concern at BP/St James's about possible public displeasure being shown to the POW. However, Henney said it was William and Harry's decision to walk...'the boys talked about walking with the cortège to close members of their family and only those they trusted' (Sandy herself was up at Balmoral following Diana's death and recalled Harry helping her sort and read the mound of condolence letters received there from the public) 'and no-one they talked to at that time would ever speak to a third party about what the children said'.

Stuart Higgins, the editor of The Sun tabloid in the 1990s, refused to believe it was solely the boys' choice. Sandy Henny is quoted by Junor as having argued vehemently with him about it. She stated

'Right up to the last minute when the boys decided to walk behind the coffin there was a plan that if they couldn't do it -entirely their choice- I would go, take them from the Prince's apartment at St James across to Clarence House and they would go to the funeral with their great-grandmother. It was their choice and it angered me that everyone was saying what the boys should and shouldn't do in relation to their mother's funeral.'

In light of the above, (and Sandy Henney is a discreet woman who knew what was going on in that terrible week,) what are we to make of Harry's recent interview in which he more or less states that he (and presumably his brother as well) was 'made' to walk behind the coffin? Who put pressure, subtle or otherwise, on them and why? Was it the pressure of public and media expectation, the expectations of the BRF at a moment of trauma in national life? Or what?

We may learn more from the two forthcoming documentaries in July/August in which the brothers are to speak about their mother's death and funeral, and I hope some answers are there.

 

[Denville]

I think its unlikely that they were "made to", and I'm surprised at harry saying it. Whatever the truth is, I think if there were rows about it at the time, due to the stress of the situation, he should preserve a discreet silence about them and leave it in the past. ANd I think its outrageous of whoever said that Charles was anxious about being attacked by the public. Charles isn't a physical coward whatever he is..
There were probably intense discussions about what to do and maybe disagreements, and Harry should have remained silent about them.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Curryong, for that summary.

In light of the above, (and Sandy Henney is a discreet woman who knew what was going on in that terrible week,) what are we to make of Harry's recent interview in which he more or less states that he (and presumably his brother as well) was 'made' to walk behind the coffin? Who put pressure, subtle or otherwise, on them and why? Was it the pressure of public and media expectation, the expectations of the BRF at a moment of trauma in national life? Or what?

You are floating good points.

Consider Charles indicating that he felt pressured by his father's letter to ask Diana to marry. Many say there was no pressure, but there was a relationship with all the subtleties in play, plus the press at the time...and now we look at this. Who knows what a 12 and 15 year old felt was being asked of them, or how in hindsight they see those events.

I think its unlikely that they were "made to", and I'm surprised at harry saying it. Whatever the truth is, I think if there were rows about it at the time, due to the stress of the situation, he should preserve a discreet silence about them and leave it in the past. And I think its outrageous of whoever said that Charles was anxious about being attacked by the public. Charles isn't a physical coward whatever he is. There were probably intense discussions about what to do and maybe disagreements, and Harry should have remained silent about them.

Agree 100%. Well said. How will 'talking to the public' about any of this solve anything for Harry?

 

[Curryong]

Both William and Harry agreed together to speak in these two documentaries which pay tribute to Diana on the 20th anniversary of her death. Prince William also made reference to his mother and her death in the GQ interview he did recently, I believe. I remember there were discussions here on TRF about what he'd said and whether it seemed to imply some criticism of his father. So they both believe they have something to say about their mother's death and the very public funeral in which they took part. They also believe there's public interest involved or they obviously wouldn't have participated.

 

[Osipi]

This may not seem to make a whole lot of sense but is it possible that even now, 20 years after the fact of Diana's death, with Harry first coming out and stating that he repressed memories of his mother and didn't talk about her that everything is flooding back now that the dam has been breached and a lot of what he's remembering now is colored by the confusion of a 12 year old boy confronting an unreal event that turned his world upside down over night?

Perhaps the statement that no young boy of his age should ever be made to walk being his mother's coffin could also express the feeling that no young boy of 12 should ever lose his mother that way and at that age in the first place. We've seen some pretty good examples to the contrary that the boys were not "made" to make this very public walk. Is it possible that that Harry was referring to the event that created the need for the walk in the first place rather than adults pushing the child to do something he'd rather not do?

Just some random thoughts.

 

[wyevale]

NO GOOD will come of 'emoting' in public, by either of the Princes.. it was a disaster for their Mother and it is likely to be the same for them
Talk to trusted friends/family/counsellors by ALL means, but 'never apologise, never EXPLAIN' is an infinitely wiser course...

 

[Osipi]

I disagree. I'd much rather have a person be himself and open and honest with everyone than to remain behind a wall of "mystique".

In other words, I'd rather have someone on the public stage that I see as a person rather than a person in a role.

 

[wyevale]

I respect your view Osipi, but I cannot share it..Possibly its a British v American difference !

Its not about 'mystique' so much as 'keeping something for oneself'. His words can [and will] be wilfully misinterpreted by others who have 'their own axe to grind', and once they have escaped his lips he cannot control or predict how they might be seen...or used.

 

[Osipi]

I respect your opinion also wyevale and the sound reasoning behind it.

That is a biggie that I didn't take into consideration. The interpretations that others could put on whatever he says and twist it and turn it to mean something opposite from what Harry intended it to mean in the first place.

I think it was Joseph Goebbels that stated something to the effect that if a lie is stated often enough and loud enough, it creates its own element of truth or something to that effect and there's wisdom behind those words.

Perhaps in constructive thinking, your opinion is much more valid than mine is.
Thanks.

 

[wyevale]

Gracefully put, thanks Osipi..

I think that the Princes' Stepmother has 'the right idea' in her silence, discretion and tact...
NO-ONE can use or misinterpret words left unsaid ! x

 

[Curryong]

So, I will be going to buy Newsweek to read the entire article and see for myself what Harry did or didn't say, rather than reading snippets that another publication has cherry picked and misinterpreting and judging and posting on that.

 

[Leopoldine]

NO GOOD will come of 'emoting' in public, by either of the Princes.. it was a disaster for their Mother and it is likely to be the same for them
Talk to trusted friends/family/counsellors by ALL means, but 'never apologise, never EXPLAIN' is an infinitely wiser course...

I very much agree with this.

By going public with opinions and lamentations about how they might or might not have been treated by family and staff, William and Harry run the risk of starting up the War of the Wales again, stirring up the public about what should remain private.

That all being said, let's pivot and look to see why he might be doing this.

Perhaps Harry was disconcerted when, a short while ago, Charles's letter to Mrs. Reagan about his "Greek tragedy" marriage was published, along with Camilla's comments about her 1990's upsetting ordeals with photographers. Could Harry be pushing back at them, emulating his mother by doing it through the press and public opinion?

edit - I just found out that his interview was taped months ago, so "push back" would make no sense.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps the statement that no young boy of his age should ever be made to walk being his mother's coffin could also express the feeling that no young boy of 12 should ever lose his mother that way and at that age in the first place. We've seen some pretty good examples to the contrary that the boys were not "made" to make this very public walk. Is it possible that that Harry was referring to the event that created the need for the walk in the first place rather than adults pushing the child to do something he'd rather not do?

Just some random thoughts.

Probably as usual Harry doesn't engage brain before he speaks.. I don't believe he was pushed. but whether he was or not, he should keep quiet about it.
He has friends, he can talk to about his feelings for his mother and the awful tragedy..and as he's said, he has had therapy.. tehre's no need to refer except obliquely to the problems his parent's marriage caused or any difficulties that came out at the time of her death.

 

[Denville]

I disagree. I'd much rather have a person be himself and open and honest with everyone than to remain behind a wall of "mystique".

In other words, I'd rather have someone on the public stage that I see as a person rather than a person in a role.

But you dotn know what is the real truth of what he is "portraying" In this latest stuff about his childhood. He may be misremebering, he may be deliberately distorting what happened.. he may be saying things to illustrate a point or to get attention. In short you don't really know wehter he is being "open and honest" just because he talks of these matters

 

[Curryong]

But Denville, we here know nothing really of what happened behind closed doors in that dreadful week, or what pressures, if any, the boys were under. At least Harry knows something of what went on. He was there. We put our own interpretations on statements in interviews, if anything is said openly by a member of the Royal family, and that interpretation of someone else's feelings is often coloured by whether we like the Royal or not.

 

[Lady Nimue]

But you don't know what is the real truth of what he is "portraying" in this latest stuff about his childhood. He may be mis-remembering, he may be deliberately distorting what happened, he may be saying things to illustrate a point or to get attention. In short you don't really know wehter he is being "open and honest" just because he talks of these matters.

Good final point. We also don't (wholly) know the character of the man. We can infer from several situations he has been in, and interviews. It's not the first time he has been indiscreet.

It also makes the situation difficult (maybe) for other BRF members who recall that time, lived through it, but from whom we will never hear a word regarding it because they adhere to the protocol calling for discretion in all matters personal.

But Denville, we here know nothing really of what happened behind closed doors in that dreadful week, or what pressures, if any, the boys were under. At least Harry knows something of what went on. He was there. We put our own interpretations on statements in interviews, if anything is said openly by a member of the Royal family, and that interpretation of someone else's feelings is often coloured by whether we like the Royal or not.

He was a 12 year old child. What he 'knows went on' is specific to his age back then. He was not a primary actor in the situation (like Charles was, for example).

 

[Curryong]

Well, in the two forthcoming documentaries to mark Diana's death this August BOTH brothers will be talking about their feelings regarding her death and funeral. So if William speaks about those times, and he will, is he also going to be labelled indiscreet by you, or is it just Harry?

Both brothers were there at the time. We weren't. Both have their memories of that time and I don't think they should be discounted.

I lost my mother at twelve and my memories of her death and her funeral are quite clear and correspond with the memories of other relatives. I don't suffer from false memory syndrome with regard to my mother's demise and funeral, nor do I believe that is the case with either William or Harry.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Well, in the two forthcoming documentaries to mark Diana's death this August BOTH brothers will be talking about their feelings regarding her death and funeral. So if William speaks about those times, and he will, is he also going to be labelled indiscreet by you, or is it just Harry?

There seems to be a shared standard of discretion among members of the BRF regarding personal matters. If both William and Harry are not abiding by that boundary, it's an interesting choice, don't you think? No one else in the BRF does this, and, in fact, when Sarah, the Duchess of York, indulged in this kind of thing years ago, she was soundly condemned. Double standard? Wondering. I am not British, remember, so my sensibilities may not jive with British sensibilities in this.

 

[Denville]

But Denville, we here know nothing really of what happened behind closed doors in that dreadful week, or what pressures, if any, the boys were under. At least Harry knows something of what went on. He was there. We put our own interpretations on statements in interviews, if anything is said openly by a member of the Royal family, and that interpretation of someone else's feelings is often coloured by whether we like the Royal or not.

exactly... If there were rows and tensions at the time which does happen whne someone dies and there is tension in the family, it is usually IMO best kept iwhtin the family. If Harry says something, unless he goes int a long complex explanation of what happened.. its bound to be interpreted one way or another by people depending on whether they like Harry/Charles/Diana etc. Rows and family tensions happen esp at funerals. and give the way the war of the Waleses still seems to be being fought, by what is probably a minority of people, isn't it best to let the tensions stay in the past in the family rather than adding to this dragging the "war" along still?
I don't believe the boys were "pushed" to walk, but I believe that Charles Spencer feels they should not have been asked to do it.. From what I understand it was felt that it would be good if they could do it, but if they didn't feel able to, it was understood and they would have been allowed to arrive in a different way. PHilip I believe told Will that if he didn't walk, he might feel bad about it latter and I think that it is true. It was a sad thing for him to have to do, but if he hadn't done it he might later have felt that he let his mother take her last journey alone without him.. and it was good that he was able to do it, with PHIlips companionship. So I don't really think, if there were some disputes that were resolved, it is a good thing for harry ot bring the issue up now.

 

[Curryong]

There seems to be a shared standard of discretion among members of the BRF regarding personal matters. If both William and Harry are not abiding by that boundary, it's an interesting choice, don't you think? No one else in the BRF does this, and, in fact, when Sarah, the Duchess of York, indulged in this kind of thing years ago, she was soundly condemned. Double standard? Wondering. I am not British, remember, so my sensibilities may not jive with British sensibilities in this.

Well, there certainly seems to be a double standard going in with regard to Harry in comparison to his brother going on by some posters including yourself, in which Harry is to be condemned for indiscretion in speaking about this, when both William and Harry have spoken openly in recent times about their mother and the effect it had on them.

This has occurred in both separate and joint interviews, ie William's wide ranging interview with a magazine some time ago, in which he mentioned his mother and the effect of her loss and didn't mention his father at all, something which didn't go unremarked by onlookers, including posters to this forum. Yet Harry gets hammered for being indiscreet, in talking about the walk behind the cortège with you specifically citing his past behaviour, and his brother gets a pass. Fair? I don't think so!

So, I ask again, if William imparts his feelings in the upcoming documentaries about his mother and her passing, and his opinion about HIS walk on that day, is he going to be equally condemned for being 'indiscreet' and how he shouldn't speak about such things, or is he going to get a pass and Harry be blamed?

Perhaps, in spite of the sensibilities of some posters here, both men want to speak about that week and the impact it had on them. Perhaps both want to be honest about their feelings as young royals walking behind their mother's coffin. Perhaps they both want to get the information out into the public arena about how they felt and feel about their beloved mother's passing. Also, if they don't wish to include their father in these memories, then that surely is up to them, not us. And I emphasise them, not just one brother.

 

[Osipi]

Denville, in your previous post you've pointed out something intrinsically important that jumps out at me.

There's been much discussion about how negative it was perhaps to "push" the boys to walk behind their mother's coffin in a very public funeral and then back and forth discussions about what the discord of the behind the scenes were like leading up to the funeral.

One thing that was very much a positive is the way they all did fall in together to support each other during the funeral. Philip, which a lot of people grew to understand could not abide Diana and her actions, walked. Charles, the ex-husband free after a very acrimonious marriage, walked. These two people realized the importance of being there for William and Harry. They weren't walking behind Diana's coffin because of a heart wrenching loss but because they were a support system for two boys who were suffering such a loss.

Of course a unexpected death causes all kinds of confusion with emotions that expresses these confusions but within it all there is also the positives of caring about another person's loss, their well being and gentle guidance to help them cope. We can focus on the negatives until the cows come home but lets look also at the positives. There's balance in everything.

Same with just about everything else we discuss. Harry's openness in his interviews create both negative and positive reactions. They're both valid.