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

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree. That island was the best possible location. Diana, Princess of Wales could have been laid at rest at Frogmore, but she would only be joined by her younger son Harry as Charles, William and George are most likely to be interred in the Abbey.

[Iluvbertie]

He wanted her on the estate because he knew it would bring in many more people than if she was buried say at Windsor Castle as people could look at where she was buried - and they did - the stood at places from where they could see the island. Spencer made money from having Diana buried on the estate. He may have donated the extra money people paid to see the Diana exhibition to charity but the fact is that the attendance at his estate did increase his own income and he knew she would. That is why he wanted her there in death - after all he refused to let her live there when alive.

[Denville]

No, it is not true that he would not let her live there. He did offer a house to her and then changed his mind because it was felt not just by him but by the police that the house chosen wasn't abel to be secured very well. But he offered her other houses on the estate. Diana however got angry and refused to compromise. She wrote him an angry letter which he returned unread because he was trying NOT to get into a fight with her.
He wanted her buried on the estate because it was private. I did not like the Diana exhibition (and he didn't donate the money to charity) but he may well have felt that as the keeper of Diana's legacy while her sons were small, he wanted to keep her memory alive with the public. There was no chance that the RF would allow Diana to be buried anywhere Royal, and she was going to be buried in her family home; it was up to Charles Spencer to arrange where she would be buried and I think he made the right decision to choose the island where if the public wanted, they could see the location of her grave but they could not go to it and the boys could visit it in privacy.

[Skippyboo]

Earl Spencer could have buried her in St Mary's Church where 19 generations of Spencer's are buried including her father.

http://www.britainexpress.com/counti...t-brington.htm




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Countessmeout]

Yes but the church is not private property. If he wanted his sister's grave not to become a tourist circus and be private. having her at the church would not stop that.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

Earl Spencer could have buried her in St Mary's Church where 19 generations of Spencer's are buried including her father.

Great Brington, St Mary's Church | Historic Northamptonshire Guide




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

And was her preferred option but Earl Spencer overruled her own wishes for his own gain.

[Curryong]

Whatever Earl Spencer's motives were for burying Diana on his estate, (and I'm sure profit was one of them) I remember reading at the time that villagers at Great Brington were worried that their village was going to be absolutely swamped with visitors to the point where it would be a great annoyance and interfere with daily life.

The vicar of St Mary's and church authorities were probably similarly anxious that the church should not be crowded with tourists every day, and there may even have been worries about the security of the Spencer family vaults. After all, a break-in to steal Diana's body or to take a look at it wouldn't have been out of the question, given the mood of the country. (Apparently there are persistent local rumours that Diana was secretly placed in the vaults later.)

[Skippyboo]

The church could limit the amount of people allowed at one time with timed entrances. Tourists in large numbers go to St George's chapel, Westminster Abbey and St Paul's and no one is stealing their bodies.

We are getting off topic however.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Denville]

and where would a small village church have the resources to do this?
Charles S made the right decision. I don't see that profit came into it. As the owner of the house where Diana grew up, he was guaranteed a fair number of visitors coming to see the place after her death..
Diana didn't envisage herself dying young and in particularly tragic circumstances, where loads of people would be very emotional about her death, Had she done so, I think she would have realised that her being buried in the church was not a practical option, both for the sake of the villagers and for privacy.

[Skippyboo]

The tourists would pay for entry. Westminster Abbey cost £20 for entry, St Paul's is £18


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Countessmeout]

Exactly. St George's and the cathedrals have security to make sure damage is not done, and to control visitors. Who would have paid to have the local church secured at all times? Considering the frenzy for years after her death, that poor church and town would have been flooded with people. Should locals who attend the church not be able to go to church on Sundays because of crazy Diana fans?? Maybe a plaque or little monument can be placed for Diana with her ancestors, while her body remains where it is.

[Dman]

Earl Spencer did not profit off of his sister's grave site. All the profits from the exhibition at Althorp went to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.

[Osipi]

What it really all boils down to is one word. Family. At the time of her death, Diana, Princess of Wales was a private citizen and although she had ties through her sons to the British Royal Family, she was no longer a member of that family and the BRF no longer had ties to her except through her sons.

All in all, I think her burial on the island at Althorp was the best move the Spencer family made as by observing the reaction of the people to her death, the outlying cause of her death (paparazzi) and the frenzy of the days following her death, they wanted some modicum of privacy for a very public person. I do think that Charles acted admirably in doing what he could for his sons by showing deep respect for his ex-wife by doing what he could to honor the mother of his boys by escorting her body back to the UK and walking with his sons in the funeral procession. At Balmoral, away from the public eye, Will and Harry were able to have their space to take in, process and come to grips with what perhaps was the most horrific moments of their young lives before having to be gawked at and photographed and such by people all over the world. HM made the right move at this time. She was a grandmother before a Queen. Her family rightly mattered more at that time than the multitudes of people clamoring for her to express what they were all feeling.

I feel that most of the blame for any problems that arose during that time did not point to the Spencers or to the Windsors but to the Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, and the media itself. It was his office that coined the phrase "people's princess" and it was the media that jumped on this adding fuel to the fire creating a frenzy where it became next to impossible for either the Spencers or the Windsors to handle this tragedy within their families.

[Mermaid1962]

I don't think that future admissions earnings was a consideration. Given his speech at the funeral and the way that he tore off the royal flag and replaced it with the Spencer one (according to Paul Burrell and perhaps another source), I think that he was seething with rage and grief and wanted his sister's body back on Spencer soil. Grief is a very strange thing. The initial numbness passes off after a couple of days and the real sorrow hits. People react differently and in different timings and sometimes do things which they normally wouldn't do.

[Queen Camilla]

Where was Charles Spencer the day the body was brought back from Paris?

He was head of her biological family. as she was divorced and her sons minors.

What was the reason why he did not accompany her body?

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

I don't think that future admissions earnings was a consideration. Given his speech at the funeral and the way that he tore off the royal flag and replaced it with the Spencer one (according to Paul Burrell and perhaps another source), I think that he was seething with rage and grief and wanted his sister's body back on Spencer soil. Grief is a very strange thing. The initial numbness passes off after a couple of days and the real sorrow hits. People react differently and in different timings and sometimes do things which they normally wouldn't do.

Or guilt.

Trying to overcompensate for the guilt he felt over their spat they had over the housing issue.

He is allowing his sister back on his property only after she is deceased and not while she was alive.

[Curryong]

Earl Spencer was at his home in Capetown South Africa when Diana died. He commented to the media about her death, citing the theories early on that the car was speeding because it was being pursued by paparazzi on motorcycles.

He obviously caught a plane to London later that day, but by then Prince Charles had gone to Paris with Diana's sisters.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Osipi

What it really all boils down to is one word. Family. At the time of her death, Diana, Princess of Wales was a private citizen and although she had ties through her sons to the British Royal Family, she was no longer a member of that family and the BRF no longer had ties to her except through her sons.

All in all, I think her burial on the island at Althorp was the best move the Spencer family made as by observing the reaction of the people to her death, the outlying cause of her death (paparazzi) and the frenzy of the days following her death, they wanted some modicum of privacy for a very public person. I do think that Charles acted admirably in doing what he could for his sons by showing deep respect for his ex-wife by doing what he could to honor the mother of his boys by escorting her body back to the UK and walking with his sons in the funeral procession. At Balmoral, away from the public eye, Will and Harry were able to have their space to take in, process and come to grips with what perhaps was the most horrific moments of their young lives before having to be gawked at and photographed and such by people all over the world. HM made the right move at this time. She was a grandmother before a Queen. Her family rightly mattered more at that time than the multitudes of people clamoring for her to express what they were all feeling.

I feel that most of the blame for any problems that arose during that time did not point to the Spencers or to the Windsors but to the Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, and the media itself. It was his office that coined the phrase "people's princess" and it was the media that jumped on this adding fuel to the fire creating a frenzy where it became next to impossible for either the Spencers or the Windsors to handle this tragedy within their families.

Great post, as usual.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The tourists would pay for entry. Westminster Abbey cost £20 for entry, St Paul's is £18


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I'm sorry but I think that is an awful idea. Cathedrals like St Paul's etc do charge for entry ( or rather they ask I think for a contribuiotn) because they are historical monuments and the money helps with their upkeep but this si a village church. it is there for the people of the area to worship, not for tourism

Originally Posted by Osipi

What it really all boils down to is one word. Family. the world. HM made the right move at this time. She was a grandmother before a Queen. Her family rightly mattered more at that time than the multitudes of people clamoring for her to express what they were all feeling.

I their families.

Oh come now, if she cared that much about the boys why did she send them out to speak to the crowds? I think that it was right at least that Will as D's oldest son should walk behind her coffin, maybe Harry was too young. But I can't see any reason for their being setn out to talk to the crowds other than that the RF waS scared that they were being seriously critiicsed by the public and they used the boys to delfect that. They knew that the boys wouldn't be criticised as they were..
As For C Spencer I don't believe he gave the profits to the Diana fund. He did do some events at Althorp for her fund, after her death but all profits of the Exhibition and generally seeing the house go to the house itself, as it costs a mint to upkeep.
However I am sure that his decision to bury Diana on an island was the right one and that it was hardly anytng to do with wanting profits.

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Or guilt.

Trying to overcompensate for the guilt he felt over their spat they had over the housing issue.

He is allowing his sister back on his property only after she is deceased and not while she was alive.

again that is not the case. he did not refuse to allow Dian on his property and he did at the time of the Garden house incident offer her other houses.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

Oh come now, if she cared that much about the boys why did she send them out to speak to the crowds?

I don't remember W&H sent out to talk to the crowds. I do remember them solemnly taking in all the flowers, notes and such that had piled up outside of their London home at KP. They had arrived the day before the funeral was to take place and was accompanied by their father.

Perhaps for a better, in depth recollection of those days, a good source is Dickie Arbiter as he was close to the events going on and knew Diana quite well. Its a good read. Don't let the Daily Fail headline mislead you.

What really happened behind Palace doors in royalty's darkest hour: A prince too frightened to view Diana's condolence book. The Queen gripped with anxiety. An insider reveals the torment over the princess's death | Daily Mail Online

[Denville]

Yes they did speak to the crowds. You can see it on TV where they went out to see the flowers and to speak and shake hands with people.