What if things had been different? Alternate History

[Duchess]

Got this question from another board and thought it was really interesting. What if it had been Charles that was killed and not Diana. What do you think Diana's role would be today? Do you think she would be treated differently by the RF? What about her romantic interests?

 

[Reina]

Well I think Diana's role woudl be augmented esp. since William woudl be first in line to the throne. I think that would mean that she would have to stop some of her relationships. She woudl probably get the HRH status back. However I don't think she would get as much power as Queen Victoria's mom-the Duchess of Kent-had. I think William and HArry would be pushed into royal duties way earlier.

 

[Elspeth]

If Charles had died while they were still married, she'd never have lost the HRH. As to what would have happened if he'd died after their divorce, I assume the Queen would have had some major input into William and Harry's upbringing; I'm sure she wouldn't have just sat back and let Diana do whatever she wanted.

 

[lashinka2002]

If Charles had died while they were still married, she'd never have lost the HRH. As to what would have happened if he'd died after their divorce, I assume the Queen would have had some major input into William and Harry's upbringing; I'm sure she wouldn't have just sat back and let Diana do whatever she wanted.

This is very interesting. If Charles had died in 1997 instead of Diana, wouldn't that leave diana full custody? In the real world that may happen but in the royal world would Granny Queen Elizabeth have any sort of custodial rights? Doesn't this get taken care of in some sort of pre agreement before the wedding - I mean in reagards to children of the crown? I'm hoping that Diana and the Queen would have worked together for Williams future & the future of the Monarchy but I don't think that either woman would have sat back and let the other walk all over them. They probably would have needed a mediator of some sort, at least in the begining. I do think Diana may have taken the HRH back as the queen did offer it to her at an earlier time so I've heard. Goodness things would certainly be different wouldn't they?

 

[Frothy]

Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

 

[Alicky]

I think I read somewhere that the Queen actually can overrule Mum, and that the Queen actually has custody. I'm not sure where that would be found though, let me see if I can find any leads.

 

[A.C.C.]

Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

Actually, it was said on a television program that The Queen did have gaurdianship rights, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. I mean, if granny is The Queen, things might be a little different than regular circumstances.

 

[Alicky]

I just remember arguing with someone over something, we got into the custody deal and I didn't belive it, and he quoted some act or something. Mine's not too accurate either lol!

 

[Alicky]

I don't think it's a far-fetched idea though.

 

[iowabelle]

Under British law, I doubt the Queen would have had any standing; her only standing is in terms of permission to marry. Diana would have become hugely powerful, with the only break on her behaviour the attitude of her sons; once they turned 18 her custody would have ceased. As sole parent, Diana would have had total authority to make all decisions re: the boys. both as a matter of fact (Granny cannot overrule Mum) and law (Diana would have sole custody) the Queen would have had no control.

I expect some serious horsetrading would have taken place. Certainly Diana would not have been excluded from royal functions thereafter.

I disagree, Frothy. The Queen still exercises the ultimate power over her grandchildren, although it's not obvious to us (and she doesn't usually exercise it). For example, royal children cannot be taken out of the country without the Sovereign's permission.

I am sure that Diana would have become more powerful as the surviving parent of the royal heirs, but any major decisions regarding the boys would have been made by the Queen in consultation with others, including Diana (and probably the Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury).

In this case royal children aren't like other children.

 

[portergirl]

They'd have blamed Diana

I know this will come off as cynical to some people, because that's actually how I feel -- but I believe the Queen and Prince Philip, and perhaps others in the Royal Family and the press would somehow, some way, have blamed Diana. I know there are those who who blame Charles for the accident of Diana, saying he and the Queen, Philip, etc. plotted her murder. I am one who believes it was a tragic accident with Diana. So I don't mean I think people would have thought Diana planned Charle's murder. But I think they would have thought Diana caused emotional turmoil, and I don't know what, because it's too far-fetched to understand. But they blamed Diana for everything when she was alive, tried to get people to think she was unbalanced. So they'd have blamed her somehow. And I don't think she'd have gotten her title back. I don't think she'd have had full custody or say-so in raising the boys. I think nothing would have changed. Oddly enough, I think Charles towards the end actually had some feelings (not love, but kindness) for Diana and once he was gone I don't think the rest of the Family would have cared about her at all. The boys would have been much better off because I think she was the best part of their lives and kept them human, and no children should have to lose their mother when they're so young, so for the sake of the boys I think things would have been better. And certainly Diana was the shining light in the Royal Family, so there would have been continued appreciation for all things Royal. But sadly, otherwise, I don't think it would have helped things or changed things at all. Except Camilla would have been without the love of her life!! What an intriguing thread, though!

 

[Alicky]

So the boys would be better off with a dead Charles than a dead Diana? It's a no-win situation either way obviously, but putting like that I think is very cold.

 

[ysbel]

I thought of something similar when Charles got in that avalanche a few years ago and one of his friends died.

What if Charles and his sons had been on that mountain in Austria in 1988 when the avalanche hit and none had survived? As it was, the avalanche took one life and almost killed another.

I think losing her sons would have destroyed Diana but I wonder what would have happened to the Royal Family if they had lost Charles, William, and Harry in 1988? Would Andrew have taken the title of Prince of Wales? Would pressures would have been on Sarah to shape up? Pressures to have a son?

Charles was faulted for not taking more care before that group had gone on the hill. Would he have been blamed posthumously for recklessly endangering his son's lives?

 

[Elspeth]

I think the ski run they were on was an expert one; he wouldn't have had the two boys along. I gather it's possible that both Diana and Fergie might have been there but Fergie, who was pregnant, had had a fall that morning and was resting in the afternoon, and Diana stayed with her.

What would have happened if both Charles and Diana had been killed doesn't bear thinking about; Prince Harry was only three at the time.

I think that by 1988 Diana and Charles were already on seriously bad terms, and I've often wondered if she wished he'd died in that avalanche so that she could play the grieving widow and then go on with her life with the boys. It seems to me that she might have smothered them a bit, since she seemed to be using them to get the love that she wasn't getting from Charles and his family, but who knows how things would have turned out.

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't want to get into this one!!

Oh Lord, this thread is asking for trouble in my opinion. I am not going to venture one. This could turn into a war of Diana Supporters VS Charles Supporters. Unless something awful is said about Diana, I am not saying a word!

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, I must admit I was a bit worried about how the thread might turn out, but so far people seem to be being sensible.

 

[tiaraprin]

Yes, I must admit I was a bit worried about how the thread might turn out, but so far people seem to be being sensible.

Isn't it scary Elspeth that I act more like a moderator sometimes???

 

[Feberin]

Had Charles died instead of Diana things would have become differant. I think Charles after he died would have been looked back on more fondly and many of his mistakes forgotten. I think Diana and the Queen would frequently be at odds over the boys and Diana would have been held responsible for a lot of the marital problems. I don't think Diana would be welcomed back to the royal family and recieve HRH again. In fact I think their relationship would get worse since with William being the heir apparent the Queen would develop much mroe percise ideas as to how he should be raised.

Had Charles died years before in 1988 then I think the truth about Charles and Diana's ill matched marriage would have never completely come to light. And Charles would be remembered in a very positive light. Diana may then have managed to have a better relationship with the royal family.

 

[Alicky]

Would William then be bumped up to Prince of Wales?

 

[Warren]

Would William then be bumped up to Prince of Wales?

Not immediately, but after a suitable interval it would be appropriate. The timing would be at The Queen's discretion.
.

 

[lashinka2002]

I think I read somewhere that the Queen actually can overrule Mum, and that the Queen actually has custody. I'm not sure where that would be found though, let me see if I can find any leads.

Well Since nobody seems to be sure the best example may be from past history. How was Queen Victoria's upbringing handled after her fathers death. I've read that Queen Victoria's mother exercised almost all power and custody over Victoria so much to the point where the King had rebuked her at a social event. Does anyone have anymore insight on this?

I agree with Frothy on the custodial issue with Diana having full custody. As for Diana having to request permission to take her boys out of the country this may be more of a courtesy so that preperations can be made for security for the boys while they are gone. If the crown is worried about Diana taking off with her boys that would never happen since they are internationally famous and would be recognized in a split second. Diana very much wanted William to take his place as King. I think the Queen would want to be kept abreast of her grandsons lives and thier whereabouts so that she may do her duty and guide William as best as she could for his future role as King and Harry for his role as future Duke. I really don't see Diana not agreeing to this thier birthright. If Charles had died I think Diana would have been just as shocked as Charles was at Diana's death - the nation as well. I don't think anyone would have blamed Diana for it.

If you find a lead let me know, I find this topic very interesting.

 

[iowabelle]

I really do believe that royal children are treated differently than regular children in this respect. Not only are they members of a family (which would have consisted of Diana and the boys) but they are the future of the monarchy. Had Diana decided to take some action with the boys that the Queen and the Establishment disapproved of, they would have prevented her taking the boys into that situation.

The analogy with the Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria might not work in this situation because the Duchess was extremely over-protective and not likely to move her child out of the safety of Kensington Palace, nor was the Duchess likely to expose Victoria to people outside of royal circles. Also, the Duchess was highly dependent on money from the King, which Diana wasn't (having her own money and many wealthy friends).

 

[Elspeth]

I'm sure Charles has a will in which he set out some conditions about what would have happened if he'd died while the princes were children. I really doubt that Diana would have been given a totally free hand with them since the Queen and senior advisers knew that she was so disenchanted with the royals and wanted the boys to be raised differently from the usual royal upbringing. Even if the Queen had been inclined to be hands-off about it, I should imagine that she'd have had pressure applied to her to intervene and take a hand in what happened to the boys.

 

[iowabelle]

Exactly, Elspeth! That's what I was trying to say.

We all know that Diana tended to make emotional decisions. If she had made some decisions for the boys that appeared irrational to the Queen and her advisors, it wouldn't have been allowed.

 

[ysbel]

Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.

 

[branchg]

Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.

That's nonsense. As part of her divorce agreement, Diana was required to have royal protection officers with the boys in public, she was not allowed to leave the UK without notifying the Queen, and the Queen and the Government reserved the right to modify any plan of travel or vacation for reasons of security for the boys.

She was the mother of a future king and understood there was no way she could determine the children's security if Scotland Yard vetoed her plans. Diana could, and did, dismiss her own right to have royal protection officers for her own safety shortly after her separation from Prince Charles.

Even then, if she was performing her public duties or traveling on behalf of the UK, she was required by John Major to have royal protection officers. Only after the divorce and the loss of her royal rank was she able to finally dismiss the protection for good (against the Queen and Prince Charles' wishes).

Ironically, Diana probably died because she didn't have royal protection officers with her in Paris that night. Scotland Yard would never have allowed to her get into the car with Henri Paul or get away with not wearing her seatbelt.

 

[wlb825]

I think she would be still a HRH and william would be in the throne.....

 

[Elspeth]

I think we ought to be able to disagree with other posters without resorting to calling their posts nonsense. It was reported by some reporters that Diana wanted to rely on the Fayed security team for her vacation with her sons on the Fayed yacht. Whether that report is true or not is another matter, but it doesn't warrant having a post being labelled nonsense.

Ysbel, do you have any source for that report? I remember reading something about it, but I don't have a clue where it was now.

 

[ysbel]

I think we ought to be able to disagree with other posters without resorting to calling their posts nonsense. It was reported by some reporters that Diana wanted to rely on the Fayed security team for her vacation with her sons on the Fayed yacht. Whether that report is true or not is another matter, but it doesn't warrant having a post being labelled nonsense.

Ysbel, do you have any source for that report? I remember reading something about it, but I don't have a clue where it was now.

Hi Elspeth, it came up during that week before her death which I deem as more reliable than anything reported after her death. Like you, I don't remember where it was but give me some time and I'll look.

 

[iowabelle]

Diana already lost one battle with Buckingham Palace over the boys. She didn't want Britain's security service to be around when she vacationed with the boys and Dodi the week before her death. The Queen put her foot down so the security service remained at least while the boys were there.

That's another example of what I was talking about. I know that Diana wanted her freedom and probably wanted some privacy for the boys (without prying eyes of a security team)... but it's just not practical for senior royals to not have security. It wasn't safe in the 1970s (the Princess Anne and Mountbatten incidents) and certainly not safe now with Al-Qaeda and similar organizations.