The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/)
-   -   Was 'The Oval' in Althorp the right place to bury Diana? (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/was-the-oval-in-althorp-the-right-place-to-bury-diana-13507.html)

TheTruth 08-08-2007 11:01 AM

Was 'The Oval' in Althorp the right place to bury Diana?
 
Okay it's a little morbid but many people are still contesting this decision which was taken 10 years ago. It seems to be a strange question but I had to ask it. Moderators : delete it if you think it's inappropriate for the forum:flowers:. I apologize in advance if it was the case.

CasiraghiTrio 08-08-2007 11:22 AM

Refresh my memory, someone. Whose decision was it? Was it in her Will that she wanted this, or was it made by the Spencers as being an appropriate place where she could rest in peace? I assume this was either Diana's or the Spencers' unanimous decision, because I don't believe the royal family would have much cared where she was buried and would have accepted whatever the Spencers decided. It was either Sarah McCorquodale or Lord Spencer, or both, who was executor of the Will, right? They would have made this decision.

What little I "know" of Diana (I "know" much from books, for lack of a better word, but I know it's not really "knowing" her) I would say it makes sense that she would have liked to be buried in anyone of her childhood homes, and I feel fairly comfortable saying I am sure that she loved Park House, grew to love Althorp, and also cherished her mother's Scottish farm. Given those choices, I'd say Althorp was a good choice because:
1) Park House, Sandringham was out of the question, for obvious reasons
2) Her mother probably hated the idea of her Scottish home being turned into a "Graceland", and Althorp was already open to the public with a pay office (from a converted stables) and everything like that.
3) I believe expecting the royal family to open up Windsor or any of their estates for Diana's final resting place would have been hoping for a miracle. Say what you will about her being a future king's mother, they could hardly get their heads around her having a public funeral much less being laid to rest among Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and all the rest at Frogmore.

TheTruth 08-08-2007 11:38 AM

I've found her will here. She says she wished to be buried but didn't specify the place. Normally, I think the Spencer are burried in the church near Althorp. Diana is an exeption of course. I believe the decision was taken by one of the 2. Although I read somewhere, several times, that all her will wasn't respected but I don't remember which part.

selrahc4 08-08-2007 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 651178)
Given those choices, I'd say Althorp was a good choice because:
1) Park House, Sandringham was out of the question, for obvious reasons

Is the obvious reason the fact that the Spencers didn't own this property?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 651178)
3) I believe expecting the royal family to open up Windsor or any of their estates for Diana's final resting place would have been hoping for a miracle. Say what you will about her being a future king's mother, they could hardly get their heads around her having a public funeral much less being laid to rest among Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and all the rest at Frogmore.

I've read that that it was originally the Queen's intention that the Princess should receive a quiet family ceremony and be buried at Frogmore, but of course events and the wishes of the Spencers changed that. Still, the option was there.

HRH Kerry 08-08-2007 11:46 AM

If one day William as king and Prince Harry want to move her closer, then the decision is theirs as to where they would place her.

sirhon11234 08-08-2007 11:47 AM

I've also read that Selrahc4 if the Princess of Wales wasn't buried at Althorp she probably would have been buried at Frogmore.

bbb 08-08-2007 11:47 AM

it's always bothered me that she's out on that island "by herself" i know it's silly but it seems so forlorn and lonely. if i remember it was said it was a favorite place to them when they were children and she had happy memories there. i suppose there was also a danger of gawd forbid some crazy fan, stealing her body like they did evita perons. in the back of my mind is the fact her brother has been making $$$ off her death (from tourists) when he wouldn't give her refuge when she was alive. i really don't like him!

HRH Kerry 08-08-2007 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 651178)
... I believe expecting the royal family to open up Windsor or any of their estates for Diana's final resting place would have been hoping for a miracle. Say what you will about her being a future king's mother, they could hardly get their heads around her having a public funeral much less being laid to rest among Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and all the rest at Frogmore.

Isn't the Duchess of Windsor among the residents at Frogmore?

ysbel 08-08-2007 12:03 PM

Well despite what I think of Earl Spencer which is not much, he was the closest person to Diana when they were growing up so I don't think he sees his late sister solely as the source of a get rich quick scheme.

I also think that despite the things we can justifiably accuse Lord Spencer of doing, refusing his sister sanctuary wasn't one of them. According to the book I am reading from Sally Bedows Smith, Lord Spencer initially told Diana that she could use some property on the estate for herself and her sons but when Buckingham Palace sent a security detail to scope the place, they recommended far-reaching changes including a thrice-daily sweep of the entire property by security forces. At that point, Earl Spencer got concerned about the impact on his own family.

Handling the Diana fans that come to her grave is not the same because he is still in charge for how to handle that security and he doesn't need to defer to Buckingham Palace. If he had agreed to let Diana stay on his estate, he would have had to defer the management of security at his estate to the Royal security.

It appears that Diana and Earl Spencer share the same trait in that they didn't like being controlled by Buckingham Palace and Earl Spencer displayed that trait in his decision on Diana's burial.

That rebelling against the authority of Buckingham Palace may be the legacy of Diana that he wanted to perpetuate since that is the trait he shared with his sister. It may not be the best trait of Diana to memorialize in the opinions of everybody else however.

TheTruth 08-08-2007 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbb (Post 651192)
it's always bothered me that she's out on that island "by herself" i know it's silly but it seems so forlorn and lonely. if i remember it was said it was a favorite place to them when they were children and she had happy memories there. i suppose there was also a danger of gawd forbid some crazy fan, stealing her body like they did evita perons.

Yes I understand that many incidents were avoided by keeping her grave away from crazy people but there could have been other ways to keep it safe and allowing people to pay her visit. I'm thinking of Monroe's which was put in a crypt in Westwood Village Memorial Park. Visitors were able to put flowers whenever they wanted and the grave couldn't be stolen (problem that occured with Charlie Chaplin's grave which was burried in a 'normal' way).

Elspeth 08-08-2007 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Kerry (Post 651194)
Isn't the Duchess of Windsor among the residents at Frogmore?

Yes, as is the Duke of Windsor, along with other minor royals.

Find A Grave - Royal Burial Grounds at Frogmore

TheTruth 08-08-2007 12:46 PM

It still bothers me that she's alone over there. People reproch to some Diana fans to be in mourning even after 10 years but how can you say goodbye to someone who is 'untouchable', burried where nobody can go ?
It would do a hell of a good for some persons to bring flowers on her grave. There were millions in front of BP and KP but it's not the same thing, people were in shock at that time, it was a crowd reaction. To be able to drop a note or flowers close to her would be the best thing to show that we don't forget her.

ysbel 08-08-2007 12:51 PM

I thought people could sign their condolences at the guestbook at Althorp. Is that not true?

bbb 08-08-2007 01:05 PM

thanks for the info ysbel, while i don't like him i understand better why he would want to protect his family and have control over his own estate. sadly i think diana was badly used by many around her, a woman craving love so much is especially vulnurable to those she "trusts" and the $ that has been made over her grave (books etc) makes me feel sad and sick for her sons. someone had an interesting point that perhaps when the "old guard" have passed, her sons might move her, while its a sweet sentiment it kinda makes me shudder at the thought of the whole morbid idea.

BeatrixFan 08-08-2007 01:28 PM

Is it right to bury anyone anywhere? When a well-known person, dare I say, an icon, dies, there will be positive and negative reaction and that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a burial location. For example, when Hitler's remains were found, they were stored away until 1970, cremated thoroughly along with the remains of Eva Braun, Magda and Josef Goebbels and their children and were tipped into the Elbe. Why? Because the Soviets didn't want Hitler's grave to become a shrine for Neo-Nazis. I assume they didn't want hoards of Di loons trapsing across Diana's burial place each day and felt it would be nicer to have memorials and shriners visit a memorial rather than the actual grave.

ysbel 08-08-2007 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbb (Post 651217)
thanks for the info ysbel, while i don't like him i understand better why he would want to protect his family and have control over his own estate. sadly i think diana was badly used by many around her, a woman craving love so much is especially vulnurable to those she "trusts" and the $ that has been made over her grave (books etc) makes me feel sad and sick for her sons. someone had an interesting point that perhaps when the "old guard" have passed, her sons might move her, while its a sweet sentiment it kinda makes me shudder at the thought of the whole morbid idea.

Well bbb, the Danes moved Empress Dagmar's remains to Russia to be beside her husband the Czar about 75 years after she died with remarkable good grace and taste so I think if enough time passes and William remains cordial with his Spencer cousins, there is a possibility of King William ascending the throne and moving his mother's remains to royal ground while keeping the royal dignity. I just think it is going to take several years before that can happen with grace.

Elspeth 08-08-2007 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 651230)
Is it right to bury anyone anywhere? When a well-known person, dare I say, an icon, dies, there will be positive and negative reaction and that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a burial location. For example, when Hitler's remains were found, they were stored away until 1970, cremated thoroughly along with the remains of Eva Braun, Magda and Josef Goebbels and their children and were tipped into the Elbe. Why? Because the Soviets didn't want Hitler's grave to become a shrine for Neo-Nazis. I assume they didn't want hoards of Di loons trapsing across Diana's burial place each day and felt it would be nicer to have memorials and shriners visit a memorial rather than the actual grave.

I think part of the reason Diana was buried on a fairly inaccessible island was to avoid having her grave be too available for people wanting to turn it into some sort of shrine. It was stated at the time that that's why she wasn't buried in the local church with other family members.

It isn't just "Di loons" who would visit her grave in large numbers, though (if by "Di loons" you're talking about people who might be inclined to set up a shrine and start a new religion and goodness only knows what else); all sorts of people might be interested in visiting her grave for all sorts of reasons, given her extremely high profile.

And I sincerely hope that the extremely high profile is the only comparison you're trying to make with Hitler.:smile:

BeatrixFan 08-08-2007 02:13 PM

:lol: Well she did goose-step around Kensington Palace. No, of course I'm not comparing her to Hitler, just a handy comparison of iconic status and burials. :flowers:

sirhon11234 08-08-2007 02:16 PM

Hitler isn't an icon he's the most famous maniac of the 20th century.

TheTruth 08-08-2007 02:35 PM

For someone who was so close to the people and wanted to be the Queen of Hearts, being left on an island is not the best place to illustrate that. I agree that some bad things could happen if you leave it to the crazy fans or 'Di loons' whatever they are. Although we know that the worst thing that could happened to her was to be left alone and unfortunately she is now.

Panicgrl 08-08-2007 02:41 PM

Since she didn't specify where she wanted to be buried, I think you would have to asked Princes William and Harry what they wanted. If they wanted her there, then it is respectful.

I kind of like the idea of her being on the island. I think its a allusion to much of her life. In the midst of her marriage and fame as POW, she felt very alone and isolated.

No matter what, her children can always change their minds when William is King. The Frogmore grounds hold Queen Victoria,some of her descendents, and many others of the Royal Family. I don't think she would have wanted to be buried there. But that is just my humble opinion.

BeatrixFan 08-08-2007 02:55 PM

Quote:

Hitler isn't an icon he's the most famous maniac of the 20th century.
He spoke very highly of you. Ok, he's not an icon, he's a famous figure.

GillW 08-08-2007 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 651206)
It still bothers me that she's alone over there. People reproach to some Diana fans to be in mourning even after 10 years but how can you say goodbye to someone who is 'untouchable', buried where nobody can go ?
It would do a hell of a good for some persons to bring flowers on her grave. There were millions in front of BP and KP but it's not the same thing, people were in shock at that time, it was a crowd reaction. To be able to drop a note or flowers close to her would be the best thing to show that we don't forget her.

Well I've been to Althorp several times both before and after Diana''s death. When I first went the island was a very quiet, peaceful place, and perfectly beautiful - I can see why they must have loved it as a haven for play.

The public can and do bring many floral and other tributes which are laid in or near the little "temple" and stay there until they fade, throughout the opening period. But no-one can get close enough to intrude or desecrate the grave-site.

Although there is nowadays a better pathway around the lake and the grounds there are more landscaped, it still seems a wonderful place for Diana to rest. She is finally safe and has a wonderful private sanctuary - something I'm sure she would have loved many times in her life.

Elspeth 08-08-2007 03:18 PM

Quote:

Since she didn't specify where she wanted to be buried, I think you would have to asked Princes William and Harry what they wanted. If they wanted her there, then it is respectful.
Trouble is, they were rather young at the time, and not equipped to get in the middle of the battle between Earl Spencer and the Royal Household. You'd think Diana had left her wedding dress to Earl Spencer, considering how fast it went on display at Althorp, and I've wondered a few times what the Princes thought of that, considering how presumably her wedding dress belonged to them after her death. Between Spencer helping himself to stuff to create a paying attraction at the museum at Althorp and Paul Burrell taking it upon himself to store vast quantities of things of Diana's (which really means "of William's and Harry's") for "safe keeping" even after William turned 18, it doesn't sound as though anybody really cares all that much what the Princes wanted to have done, and I don't suppose Diana's burial place was any different.

Henri M. 08-08-2007 03:23 PM

My answer is: yes!

The island is an unique place for an unique person. I think that most of us would dream to be buried in such a paradiselike green island in the middle of swan lake on the own ancestral home.

So: yes.

:flowers:

Panicgrl 08-08-2007 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 651282)
Trouble is, they were rather young at the time, and not equipped to get in the middle of the battle between Earl Spencer and the Royal Household. You'd think Diana had left her wedding dress to Earl Spencer, considering how fast it went on display at Althorp, and I've wondered a few times what the Princes thought of that, considering how presumably her wedding dress belonged to them after her death. Between Spencer helping himself to stuff to create a paying attraction at the museum at Althorp and Paul Burrell taking it upon himself to store vast quantities of things of Diana's (which really means "of William's and Harry's") for "safe keeping" even after William turned 18, it doesn't sound as though anybody really cares all that much what the Princes wanted to have done, and I don't suppose Diana's burial place was any different.


I would hate to be in there shoes dealing with the loss of their Mother. Its bad enough it was a horrible tragedy, but the "friends" and family (The Earl) who are willing to "pimp" (for lack of a better term) Diana's memory must be so sad. Pretty soon the woman who did her pedicures will come forward and sell her story.

I think the boys have carried themselves with the utmost dignity, and I don't see them moving her remains. But you are right, I can't help but wonder if they were involved in the decision making process in any way.

BeatrixFan 08-08-2007 04:45 PM

Quote:

You'd think Diana had left her wedding dress to Earl Spencer, considering how fast it went on display at Althorp.
Hence why I think my great-grandmother had the right idea. She was buried in her wedding dress and my great-grandfather said it was so they ended their marriage as they'd begun it - with her looking radiant. Quite romantic. Then again I'm not an Earl (I may be an old Queen but I'm not an Earl) and I would have better taste.

scooter 08-08-2007 04:55 PM

I wouldn be surprised if they publicly said we buried her on the island and then privately/secretly buried her with her ancesters in the church. This way she gets an unharassed death (if not life). Not to mention then the revenues show up at Althorp!

Henri M. 08-08-2007 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 651336)
I wouldn be surprised if they publicly said we buried her on the island and then privately/secretly buried her with her ancesters in the church. This way she gets an unharassed death (if not life). Not to mention then the revenues show up at Althorp!

That is unlikely. There are formal requirements regarding funerals, at least there are at the Continent and I can not imagine it is different on the British Isles across the Channel. For an example an official record must be made by the authorities, etc.

You are implying that various civil servants involved with the burial of the late Diana, including the staff of the funerary enterprise, the Vicar of the local parish, etc. say A but in reality know that it B. And that they have succesfully kept it secret for 10 years. And it would also imply The Earl Spencer is selling tickets for visitors to see an empty grave and that the two sons are okay with it.

No, we simply can be sure that the remains of the late Diana are buried on ancestral ground, on that little island indeed.

BeatrixFan 08-08-2007 06:34 PM

We simply can't be sure. We can't be sure of anything. She could have been buried in the Hard Rock Cafe Orlando for all we know. People want a shrine, the Spencers give them a shrine. Far worse things have been covered up that an empty tomb.

Panicgrl 08-08-2007 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 651377)
We simply can't be sure. We can't be sure of anything. She could have been buried in the Hard Rock Cafe Orlando for all we know. People want a shrine, the Spencers give them a shrine. Far worse things have been covered up that an empty tomb.



I live in Orlando, I can assure you she's not here, but you gave me a giggle!

Elspeth 08-08-2007 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 651328)
Hence why I think my great-grandmother had the right idea. She was buried in her wedding dress and my great-grandfather said it was so they ended their marriage as they'd begun it - with her looking radiant. Quite romantic. Then again I'm not an Earl (I may be an old Queen but I'm not an Earl) and I would have better taste.

Not everybody can fit into their wedding dress at the time they die, you know! The Queen Mum would have had a bit of trouble, for one thing.

Anyway, it was really nice to see the display of wedding dresses from Queen Victoria's to Queen Elizabeth's at Kensington Palace a few years ago, which wouldn't have been possible if they'd been buried in them; it's just a shame that Diana's wasn't there as well.

scooter 08-08-2007 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M. (Post 651354)
That is unlikely. There are formal requirements regarding funerals, at least there are at the Continent and I can not imagine it is different on the British Isles across the Channel. For an example an official record must be made by the authorities, etc.

You are implying that various civil servants involved with the burial of the late Diana, including the staff of the funerary enterprise, the Vicar of the local parish, etc. say A but in reality know that it B. And that they have succesfully kept it secret for 10 years. And it would also imply The Earl Spencer is selling tickets for visitors to see an empty grave and that the two sons are okay with it.

No, we simply can be sure that the remains of the late Diana are buried on ancestral ground, on that little island indeed.

No Henri, I am not 'implying it' I am suggesting that it might well be the case. I think that Charles Spencer could have asked the vicar etc to 'help his martyred sister have eternal rest with her ancestors' without danger of the loons, whether those that loved her or hated her, from desecrating her grave. I think, given the mood at the time, that there is very little that would have been refused the family. And there were,of course, no witnesses to the 'private' interrment.

ysbel 08-08-2007 07:54 PM

I think William was asked to put on the mantle of adulthood enough when his mother was alive and she depended upon his emotional support and advice for situations far beyond his young years.

I don't think it would have been appropriate to burden William and Harry so soon after their mother's death with decisions on how to conduct their mother's burial and dispose of her property seeing that they were the tender ages of 16 and 14.

scooter 08-08-2007 08:07 PM

Wasn't Harry barely 13?

ysbel 08-08-2007 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 651397)
Wasn't Harry barely 13?

You're right. Harry was not yet 13 and William had just turned 15. Too young to make decisions about their mother's burial.

GillW 08-09-2007 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 651392)
No Henri, I am not 'implying it' I am suggesting that it might well be the case. I think that Charles Spencer could have asked the vicar etc to 'help his martyred sister have eternal rest with her ancestors' without danger of the loons, whether those that loved her or hated her, from desecrating her grave. I think, given the mood at the time, that there is very little that would have been refused the family. And there were,of course, no witnesses to the 'private' internment.

Of course there were witnesses - there were pallbearers who transported & lowered the coffin into the army-prepared grave. There were the family who accompanied it to the island and all the estate staff who saw that happen.

Since media interest was present at the exits of the estate for a good period following hte funeral any possible movement of a coffin could not have gone unnoticed. The church at Gt Brington is very close to the estate, very small, and the whole village would easily have known that the sealed underground Spencer family vault had been disturbed.


If we back track further - there are those who say she was "secretly cremated" (in the family oven, or on a bonfire, maybe... :bang: ) and her ashes added to the vault - same thing, it would need opening & resealing...

We have witnesses who visited her lying at rest in London up to the evening prior to the funeral, in buildings surrounded permanently by thousands of mourning public, so she was still there until the funeral left. The coffin was carried by soldiers, one of whom was the nephew of a friend of mine, who assures me they were not carrying an empty coffin. From the Abbey, the world watched every inch of the way of the drive to Althorp.

If anyone suggests Diana was not present in the coffin at her own funeral you're also asking us to believe that her young sons were either deceived that she was there or complicit in a cover up - neither of which I find credible.

I believe she IS buried on the island and I believe too that she will remain there AND that it is the best place for her possibly to be.

Henri M. 08-09-2007 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 651392)
No Henri, I am not 'implying it' I am suggesting that it might well be the case. I think that Charles Spencer could have asked the vicar etc to 'help his martyred sister have eternal rest with her ancestors' without danger of the loons, whether those that loved her or hated her, from desecrating her grave. I think, given the mood at the time, that there is very little that would have been refused the family. And there were,of course, no witnesses to the 'private' interrment.

The Vicar and the church's verger should then be aware of this burial in the Saint Mary The Virgin Church in Great Brington. A local contractor would have been hired to remove the marble plates of the Spencer mausoleum and create a space for the coffin to be interred (and then to close the grave again).

The people from the funerary enterprise who were the pallbearers and place the coffin into its resting place would have witnessed it as well.

And the locals of Great Brington (a few hundred) who live in a very small community must have known about activities going on in their church. With vans outside, a dig machine. Police. A hearse and royals. It is impossible that this could have gone unnoticed and remained secret for 10 years. And that in a country where The Mirror, The Sun and their equivalents can not wait to bribe the people involved and to scream the truth from the headlines....

Christo's Girl 08-11-2007 03:47 PM

Diana said specifically that she wanted to be buried. Even though this was her wish I sometimes think it would have been nice if she had chosen cremation. That way William and Harry could have kept her ashes where ever they wanted.

BeatrixFan 08-11-2007 03:50 PM

Or she could have gone down the Queen Marie of Romania road who had her heart buried in one palace and had her body buried in another.

selrahc4 08-12-2007 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 652347)
Or she could have gone down the Queen Marie of Romania road who had her heart buried in one palace and had her heart buried in another.

Wow, an extra one. Truly a "Queen of Hearts". :ermm:

BeatrixFan 08-12-2007 02:18 PM

:lol: Body in one, heart in another. Unless she was Vulcan. Which I don't think she was.

love_cc 08-12-2007 04:21 PM

If Prince William and Prince Harry want to move Diana's tomb, it is their decision. I think Althorp is a good choice because it has enough room for people to gather and meomorize Diana apart from royal family members.Earl Spencer does have a musuem for Diana, doesn't he ? I don't think Althorp is a very lonely or isolated place,it was what Sarah Bradford and Tina Brown wanted to color the isolation and loneliness of Diana's life. I would use quietness to descirbe Althorp. It is a private place which is good.

BeatrixFan 08-12-2007 04:25 PM

I doubt they'd move her. Though it depends on the form in which was buried. Was she buried buried or cremated and then buried? The latter becomes difficult if the remains have been taken out of the urn but some people bury the urn which is easy to move. If she was buried then it'd mean exhumation, putting her in a new coffin and then a mini-funeral to transport and relocate. It's possible but the logistics maybe would distress too many people.

TheTruth 08-12-2007 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 652750)
I doubt they'd move her. Though it depends on the form in which was buried. Was she buried buried or cremated and then buried? The latter becomes difficult if the remains have been taken out of the urn but some people bury the urn which is easy to move. If she was buried then it'd mean exhumation, putting her in a new coffin and then a mini-funeral to transport and relocate. It's possible but the logistics maybe would distress too many people.

I think she was only buried BeatrixFan. Exhumation is a weird process. I don't think William and Harry would take this decision. Even if the relationship with the Spencer is not very good, they are always welcomed at Althorp IMO.
Does anyone know for sure if they returned there after the funeral (I'm sure they did but can't remember reading it anywhere) ?

Roslyn 08-12-2007 07:28 PM

Oh, goodness! I find the idea of digging bodies up and shifting them about quite distasteful! Mind you, I find the idea of burying them in the first place distasteful; I think cremation and scattering the ashes is a much better idea. But I know lots of people prefer burial and abhor cremation.

The way I see it, the poor woman is dead and has been for a long time. She only lives on in people's hearts and memories and books, and that occurs where the people are who are doing the remembering or reading, not where she was buried. But then I come from a family that doesn't visit graves.

I think they should be allowed to stay where she was first interred. A lot of thought went into where she would be laid to rest at the time when it mattered.

BeatrixFan 08-12-2007 08:25 PM

It isn't new where Royals are concerned though. Even now, there are plans by Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia to exhume and rebury his father. It happens quite alot as sometimes country situations change or people feel decisions were too hasty when the person died. For example, if the UK became a Republic, the bodies of members of the Royal Family might be moved from Frogmore to one of the family owned estates.

sirhon11234 08-12-2007 10:16 PM

The government could actually do that. Why?

BeatrixFan 08-12-2007 10:49 PM

Well, I was just using it as an example but when a Royal Family is deposed, it's sometimes their decision to relocate and to relocate recently deceased members of the family or vice versa. For example, Crown Prince Alexander has been allowed to return and to take residence in a Royal Palace so he's now moving his father from America to Serbia. But it can work the other way. If King William and Queen Whoever moved to France in exile, he might choose to relocate his mother to their estate there. In the event that he stayed in the UK, he'd be entitled to Sandringham and Balmoral when Windsor etc was made state property (real state property that is). If it happened tomorrow, the Queen may choose to have her father, mother and sister exhumed and reburied in a family mausoleum in the grounds of Balmoral. So it's entirely possible for Royal bodies to be moved around and happened alot in the last century as a result of so many Royal Families being deposed. Of course, it all depends on how amicable the parting is.

TheTruth 08-13-2007 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 652805)
Oh, goodness! I find the idea of digging bodies up and shifting them about quite distasteful! Mind you, I find the idea of burying them in the first place distasteful;

Yes, I agree. By the way, according to the several assassination theories surrounding her death, I'm surprised that not one crazy police inspector came up with the idea of exhumation. That process is often done when the death of someone, especially in criminal cases, is doubtful or another autopsy has to be made.

GillW 08-13-2007 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 652750)
I doubt they'd move her. Though it depends on the form in which was buried. Was she buried buried or cremated and then buried? The latter becomes difficult if the remains have been taken out of the urn but some people bury the urn which is easy to move. If she was buried then it'd mean exhumation, putting her in a new coffin and then a mini-funeral to transport and relocate. It's possible but the logistics maybe would distress too many people.

Her body was buried on the island in a lead lined coffin - NO cremation as per her specific request.

It's not that easy under English law to get and exhumation order...I suppose if you happen to be the King (William) it might be a bit easier, but I still can't feel that he would ever disturb her remains.

GillW 08-13-2007 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 652760)
I think she was only buried BeatrixFan. Exhumation is a weird process. I don't think William and Harry would take this decision. Even if the relationship with the Spencer is not very good, they are always welcomed at Althorp IMO.
Does anyone know for sure if they returned there after the funeral (I'm sure they did but can't remember reading it anywhere) ?

I assume you mean in the years since the funeral rather than immediately following the funeral (when they certainlly were there) It has been reported that Harry has been several times to visit, William less frequently. The visits are kept private and "out of season" to avoid the public visitors.

TheTruth 08-13-2007 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW (Post 652988)
I assume you mean in the years since the funeral rather than immediately following the funeral (when they certainlly were there) It has been reported that Harry has been several times to visit, William less frequently. The visits are kept private and "out of season" to avoid the public visitors.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the info :flowers:. At least when they go over there, they can't be disturbed by people. That's quite an advantage.

TheTruth 08-13-2007 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW (Post 652985)
It's not that easy under English law to get and exhumation order...I suppose if you happen to be the King (William) it might be a bit easier, but I still can't feel that he would ever disturb her remains.

Yes, I believe that also. Here's a PDF document on laws in the UK, concerning burial with a part on 'Exhumation and disturbance after burial'
https://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/burial-law-policy.pdf

It seems quite complicated to get the authorisation to do such process.

Jo of Palatine 08-13-2007 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 652697)
:lol: Body in one, heart in another. Unless she was Vulcan. Which I don't think she was.

The Habsburgs used to be buried in three parts: the heart in the Church of the Court St. Augustin, the rest of the intestines in the Cathedral of St. Stephan and the body in the crypt of the Capucine Church.

scooter 08-13-2007 10:55 AM

I actually just read somewhere that Queen Elizabeth's father was not interred until 17 years after his death. Does anyone know if that's true? Aparantly the Duke of Windsor was not allowed to come because of the whole Wallis issue.

GillW 08-13-2007 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 652993)
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the info :flowers:. At least when they go over there, they can't be disturbed by people. That's quite an advantage.

Plus they can use the boat and really go and sit where they know the exact spot where she actually lies (very few people know that) in absolute privacy.

sesa 08-13-2007 01:30 PM

I truely hope that William or anyone else for that matter, never disturbe her remains. Hopefully she is at piece with her privacy and solitude.
I'm glad that they buried her out of the "spot light" so to speak.
Only family and hopefully close friends will be able to vist her, which is what she really wanted to begin with.
I think that if they had buried her where the public could visit, there would be people who would try to do something stupid to her grave. Either out of love for her (to have a part of her to remember her or to sell) or if someone disliked her, they would probably try to desecrate her grave or headstone or whatever.
So for reasons like this, I'm glad she is where she is.

selrahc4 08-13-2007 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 653031)
I actually just read somewhere that Queen Elizabeth's father was not interred until 17 years after his death. Does anyone know if that's true? Aparantly the Duke of Windsor was not allowed to come because of the whole Wallis issue.

From the Hugo Vickers biography of the Queen Mother:
Quote:

Consideration was now [1968] given to the final resting place of King George VI, and, when the time came, of Queen Elizabeth [Queen Mother] herself. Since his funeral in 1952, the King's coffin had lain in the Royal Vault underneath St George's Chapel. Now it was decided that the King needed a special burial place. ...
In 1968 work began on the King George VI Memorial Chapel. ...
In March 1969, the Royal Vault was opened and the King's coffin brought up and placed in the new tomb. On 31 March the Royal Family and the Knights of the Garter gathered for the dedication service. The Duke of Windsor did not come from Paris, though he was invited...

Roslyn 08-13-2007 07:45 PM

When coffins lie in a vault, I think they are just set on a slab or in an outer sarcophagus. If this is the case, they are not really buried, so I don't have a problem with moving them later. I think the practice is fairly gross, mind you, but it's not the same as digging the coffin up and then burying it somewhere else.........and certainly nowhere near as bad as what those Habsburgs did.:eek:

BeatrixFan 08-14-2007 07:12 AM

Thats right, generally, there's either an underground vault which is a stone coffin-shaped hole and the slab with the inscription can be removed. In the past, coffins were loaded into an overground tomb and so the coffin was encased in a stone overground vault. That rarely happens now. I don't see what the Habsburgs did to be bad - I find it quite romantic.

CasiraghiTrio 08-14-2007 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Kerry (Post 651194)
Isn't the Duchess of Windsor among the residents at Frogmore?

Yes, and appropriately because the Duchess was family. She was the Duke's widow. I remember reading in one of Seward's books that Diana confided to the author the most vivid memory she had of the Queen shedding tears, and it was the Duchess's funeral, and Diana said she was so shocked to see it she didn't know how to respond.

I think Park House Sandringham was out of the question for two reasons I thought were obvious:
1) It was not a property of the Spencers. They had not renewed the lease since the early 70s, I think
2) It was bought by an elderly homes company, I think, in the early 90s or late 80s after being quite vacant and forlorn for many years.

I think it might have been unwise to bury her at Althorp, in retrospect, considering how her brother profits from her by such commerical means, but there is nothing to do about it now. I think her family, especially her sons, would hate to have her excavated and moved now. It would a terrible ordeal for them, I imagine.

GillW 08-14-2007 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 653440)
Yes, and appropriately because the Duchess was family. She was the Duke's widow. I remember reading in one of Seward's books that Diana confided to the author the most vivid memory she had of the Queen shedding tears, and it was the Duchess's funeral, and Diana said she was so shocked to see it she didn't know how to respond.

I think Park House Sandringham was out of the question for two reasons I thought were obvious:
1) It was not a property of the Spencers. They had not renewed the lease since the early 70s, I think
2) It was bought by an elderly homes company, I think, in the early 90s or late 80s after being quite vacant and forlorn for many years.

I think it might have been unwise to bury her at Althorp, in retrospect, considering how her brother profits from her by such commerical means, but there is nothing to do about it now. I think her family, especially her sons, would hate to have her excavated and moved now. It would a terrible ordeal for them, I imagine.

Park House, Sandringham was donated by the Queen to the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, and that charity turned it into a holiday hotel for handicapped people, and it still runs to date. Diana frequently was known to stroll across from Sandringham House and have a cup of tea with those people staying there. The visitors are also often taken to wait outside the Sandringham Church and enjoy meeting the various Royals before & after the services held there. (I worked for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation for almost 5 years)

Jeff Baltimore 08-14-2007 12:51 PM

Diana is really buried .....
 
Some say she is now really buried on the shallow island, but in the church on the property and they just told people that to give her peace. After her death and they said she was on the island there were fresh cement marks that a tomb was opened and sealed in the church.

selrahc4 08-14-2007 12:57 PM

I don't think Park House has been sold, though. It seems it was made available to the foundation but remains part of the the estate. Park House Hotel

trinny 08-14-2007 01:25 PM

At the time I think it was appropriate to bury her there, for her sake and for her boy's sake - they needed that security, privacy and solitude.

However, as someone has already said, I hate thinking of her there all on her own so I'd like to think of them moving her to ... um... possibly Frogmore (??) but for no one but those that must know to know.
So they can visit & be with their Mum more easily but still in private and with secure solitude.

iowabelle 08-14-2007 01:54 PM

I thought the choice of the island was quite charming, rather Arthurian.

On the practical side, there was the issue of security around the burial site. And I think Earl Spencer talked about his fears about disrupting life in the village, if Diana had been laid to rest with their father.

I was concerned about the boys' access to the burial site, but, let's be honest, if Diana had been buried among the royals, the boys probably wouldn't have gone often, either, because they were in school. I'm sure that Earl Spencer wouldn't have had a problem with the boys visiting her at Althorp, even if he wasn't in residence.

The whole situation was just awkward for the families and terrible for the boys.

CasiraghiTrio 08-14-2007 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle (Post 653468)
I was concerned about the boys' access to the burial site, but, let's be honest, if Diana had been buried among the royals, the boys probably wouldn't have gone often, either, because they were in school.

If buried at Frogmore, it would have been pretty convenient I think while they studied at Eton. But I can see that any place for her would have posed its own problems, given the unique person she was. At least at Althorp, it feels like she is laid to rest in a familiar home rather than what might feel like a cold mausoleum(sp) at Frogmore.

I am sure you are right about the PW and PH having free access to Althorp anytime. Although not close to Lord Spencer, for whatever reasons (perhaps only because he is often traveling or living abroad, or else they feel as the general public feels about it, not liking him! :lol:) I have always taken Spencer at his word when he says that his nephews are able and welcome to visit the island any whim. I cannot imagine why it would be otherwise.

GillW 08-16-2007 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinny (Post 653461)
At the time I think it was appropriate to bury her there, for her sake and for her boy's sake - they needed that security, privacy and solitude.

However, as someone has already said, I hate thinking of her there all on her own so I'd like to think of them moving her to ... um... possibly Frogmore (??) but for no one but those that must know to know.
So they can visit & be with their Mum more easily but still in private and with secure solitude.

But isn't it nicer that she is resting in her own "family" home where she lived - and for at least part of her youth - grew up? There are family around her for some of the year, as well as thousands of well-wishing visitors who still love & miss her.

Frogmore is not and never has been a home, simply a place for the dead - none of whom Diana even knew in life....It is open to visitors for just a handful of days each year - cutting her off from the public who kept her going and gave her invaluable support.

selrahc4 08-16-2007 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW (Post 654137)
Frogmore is not and never has been a home, simply a place for the dead -

Among others, Queen Victoria's mother the Duchess of Kent lived there. Also her daughter Princess Helena and husband Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and their family. Prince Louis of Battenberg and his wife Princess Victoria (grandparents of the Duke of Edinburgh) and their family lived there for a while; their son Louis (later Earl Mountbatten of Burma) was born there in 1900. King Edward VII lived there for a time when he was Prince of Wales and his son Albert Victor (later Duke of Clarence and Avondale) was born there in 1864.

sirhon11234 08-16-2007 03:06 PM

Fergie and Andrew were supposed to live there after the wedding.

CasiraghiTrio 08-16-2007 03:28 PM

I don't think Frogmore was ever considered to be a home by anyone in the family. Prince Andrew and Sarah, I think, once intended to have Royal Lodge refurbished but for some reason (I forgot why) they used Sunninghill Park, which had originally been intended for Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, but Sunninghill Park had been destroyed by fire so the Edinburghs moved to the rented Windlesham Moor or Manor (?) instead. Please correct me if this is wrong. I am not sure I remember this stuff precisely.

Now of course Royal Lodge is used by Prince Andrew after he inherited it from the Queen Mother and it was extensively renovated for his permanent residence. I guess Sunninghill Park is still on the market, although Sarah and the girls can still use it until it sells.

sirhon11234 08-16-2007 03:44 PM

Yes it was considered for Andrew and Sarah to move to Frogmore House.
Frogmore House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

selrahc4 08-16-2007 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 654279)
I don't think Frogmore was ever considered to be a home by anyone in the family.

Why do you think that the people I mentioned above who lived there never considered it to be a home?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 654279)
Prince Andrew and Sarah, I think, once intended to have Royal Lodge refurbished but for some reason (I forgot why) they used Sunninghill Park

The reason probably was the very good one that it was the weekend home of the Queen Mother and had been since the 1930's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 654279)
...they used Sunninghill Park, which had originally been intended for Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, but Sunninghill Park had been destroyed by fire .

Yes, the original Sunninghill Park which was purchased by the Crown Estates in 1945 did suffer destruction by fire. But, of course, Andrew did not move into that building, another (we've heard of South York) being constructed at that address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 654279)
Now of course Royal Lodge is used by Prince Andrew after he inherited it from the Queen Mother and it was extensively renovated for his permanent residence. I guess Sunninghill Park is still on the market, although Sarah and the girls can still use it until it sells.

I guess you could say he inherited it in that he received the right to lease it; but it is still a property of the Crown Estates. The Sunninghill house that was built for Prince Andrew after he married has supposedly been sold recently. I'm not sure to whom the proceeds went, whether to the Queen herself or to the Crown Estates; I'm pretty sure it was never in Andrew's name as owner.

GillW 08-16-2007 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Baltimore (Post 653452)
Some say she is not really buried on the shallow island, but in the church on the property and they just told people that to give her peace. After her death and they said she was on the island there were fresh cement marks that a tomb was opened and sealed in the church.

The Church at Great Brington is not on the estate, but about 2 miles away in the village (I know - I've walked there from Althorp house) The "fresh" cement that journalists talk about was where the vault was opened to add the remains of Diana's father, 8th Earl Spencer, a few years earlier. There has been no change since the depositing of his ashes in early 1992.

The church is not some private secret chapel, but is the well used and popular village church, so any changes would be noticed immediately.

GillW 08-16-2007 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4 (Post 654241)
Among others, Queen Victoria's mother the Duchess of Kent lived there. Also her daughter Princess Helena and husband Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and their family. Prince Louis of Battenberg and his wife Princess Victoria (grandparents of the Duke of Edinburgh) and their family lived there for a while; their son Louis (later Earl Mountbatten of Burma) was born there in 1900. King Edward VII lived there for a time when he was Prince of Wales and his son Albert Victor (later Duke of Clarence and Avondale) was born there in 1864.

Apologies - I humbly stand corrected.

However, what doesn't change is that Diana never lived there, nor any of her family, nor anyone she ever knew, and the only reason she ever set foot in the place was for a funeral or two...

CasiraghiTrio 08-16-2007 05:33 PM

I stand corrected too. I was just trying to help.

selrahc4 08-16-2007 11:24 PM

GillW and CasiraghiTrio, my apologies to both of you as well if my posts in response to yours came over too dogmatic. I was also just trying to expand on the facts. Sometimes I become too impatient with suppostion which doesn't match the facts. It's a failing of mine. :neutral:

GillW 08-17-2007 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4 (Post 654413)
GillW and CasiraghiTrio, my apologies to both of you as well if my posts in response to yours came over too dogmatic. I was also just trying to expand on the facts. Sometimes I become too impatient with suppostion which doesn't match the facts. It's a failing of mine. :neutral:

NO offence taken :flowers: - I'd much rather find out the facts than stumble along under misconceptions, so thanks for the information.

sirhon11234 08-17-2007 12:09 PM

If Diana's remains are exhumed and re-buried elsewhere its nothing new. Karen Carpenter died in 1983 and her brother had her exhumed from her marble tomb and put her into the family masoluem with her parents in 2003 20 years after her death. William and Harry might do that with the Princess.

Jo of Palatine 08-20-2007 04:55 AM

I am not convinced that Diana is buried on this island. While it seems to be a concept that is understood by her fans, I don't buy it that the current members of such an ancient family did something so "Hollywood-ish". Aristocrats bury their dogs on islands of ornamental lakes but not their sisters without at least a proper crypt.

I think Diana is buried in a coffin which is kept in the private chapel of Althorp which probably has a priest's annexe. Once the next Spencer dies and will be buried in the family crypt in the village church, her coffin will be discreetly added. If the Spencers who are buried there are mentioned somewhere through a plaque or something, they will probably put a plaque of "remembrance" next to her father's.

Just my idea, of course.

Skydragon 08-20-2007 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 655326)
I am not convinced that Diana is buried on this island. While it seems to be a concept that is understood by her fans, I don't buy it that the current members of such an ancient family did something so "Hollywood-ish". Aristocrats bury their dogs on islands of ornamental lakes but not their sisters without at least a proper crypt. .

I thought the grave was lined in marble. Many of the MacDonald chieftens were buried on an island in Loch Leven (Ballachulish/Glencoe). :flowers:

Spencer probably did it to make money, much better to have had her cremated and her ashes scattered to the wind, but that would not have made him any money at all.

Jo of Palatine 08-20-2007 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 655340)
I thought the grave was lined in marble. Many of the MacDonald chieftens were buried on an island in Loch Leven (Ballachulish/Glencoe). :flowers:

Well, Diana was not a Scot, she was English. :flowers: While I've been to Scotland several times and agree that a burial site on an island in a Scottish Loch is a very dignified place, I have completely different feelings when it comes to an artificial island in an ornamental lake which was landscaped in a time when faked ruins and pseudo-antique temples were very much à la mode. Mind, I love the English landscaped gardens and parks, but a part of their style is to have a pet graveyard somewhere with marble crypts for favorite dogs - and examples of this immediately come to my mind when I think of Diana on that island. Okay, there might be a bit of poetic justice to think of such a grave for someone who personally worked on digging a secret baby grave in a Royal garden in order to leave an unsolved mystery for future generations, but still - Diana as mother of a future king deserved a bit of decorum at least.

AFAIK there is nothing to give people a hint where she allegedly was buried
except that marble urn, but this urn is said to be somewhere else on the island and is only considered a symbol for the invisible (non-existant?) grave.

As for the MacDonalds - I wonder how the current chieftain feels about the fact that one of his clan is the mother of a future king as well and will probably one day be buried in a Royal grave in a Dansih cathedral.... ;)

Skydragon 08-20-2007 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 655351)
.... part of their style is to have a pet graveyard somewhere with marble crypts for favorite dogs

Of course we have a specific area to bury our animals, or their ashes, what else would you do with them? :biggrin:
Quote:

As for the MacDonalds - I wonder how the current chieftain feels about the fact that one of his clan is the mother of a future king as well and will probably one day be buried in a Royal grave in a Dansih cathedral.... ;)
Very proud I should think. :flowers:

TheTruth 08-20-2007 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 655371)
Of course we have a specific area to bury our animals, or their ashes, what else would you do with them? :biggrin:

Well I had a dog who was hit by a car and died. But we didn't bury him or kept his ashes with us. A sanitary service came, took him and he was cremated with other animals in a huge incinerator (I wasn't there to see it and I think it was better for me). Many people do this when the death of the animal is violent, they don't want to think of it every day when passing by the grave or the ashes. My mother saw my dog getting hit and it's way more better that we didn't keep his remains, plus we move alot so his grave would had to be removed every time.
So I believe that not all people have an area to bury them ...

GillW 08-20-2007 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 655326)
I am not convinced that Diana is buried on this island. While it seems to be a concept that is understood by her fans, I don't buy it that the current members of such an ancient family did something so "Hollywood-ish". Aristocrats bury their dogs on islands of ornamental lakes but not their sisters without at least a proper crypt.

I think Diana is buried in a coffin which is kept in the private chapel of Althorp which probably has a priest's annexe. Once the next Spencer dies and will be buried in the family crypt in the village church, her coffin will be discreetly added. If the Spencers who are buried there are mentioned somewhere through a plaque or something, they will probably put a plaque of "remembrance" next to her father's.

Just my idea, of course.

Althorp Estate does not have a private chapel. That's why the Spencer ancestors are buried either in the churchyard at Great Brington or within the sealed Spencer crypt inside the body of the church. :bang:

That particular island is elegant, peaceful, beautiful and undisturbed. It sits in the grounds Diana loved and is a wonderfully tranquil spot. There's very little "Hollywood" about any of it. The "Temple" is very old and was a stylish "folly" of its day, serving now as a gathering spot for the floral tributes brought every year - but it's no "Chinese Theatre" film set by any means.

People walk serenly around the still water of the lake, with just the sound of rustling trees and singing birds (REAL ONES - not animatronic) I find it a stark contrast to the "tourist" places that are often mentioned as alternative sites for her to be buried - such as Westminster Abbey, or St Pauls, where there are milling crowds in their droves, jostling for the best photo-opportunity in an undignified scramble before their coach leaves for Stratford so they can "do" Shakespeare.....

As for the Earl making money - well, he is using it for the upkeep of a splendid British Stately Home, PLUS he has donated many thousands from the takings over the years to Dianas charities too. The whole of the estate is superbly maintained (for instance, the public loos are the finest I've been in anywhere!) staffed by smashing young people who do a great job & are very helpful & well informed. The Diana; A Celebration exhibition is very well done, too and is a fitting tribute and very evocative. To me, I feel he is providing a much needed focal point and outlet for those who still grieve for Diana and it is not at all tacky nor tasteless, no matter what carping journalists would have you believe.

Jo of Palatine 08-20-2007 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW (Post 655409)
Althorp Estate does not have a private chapel. That's why the Spencer ancestors are buried either in the churchyard at Great Brington or within the sealed Spencer crypt inside the body of the church. :bang:

Of course Althorp has a chapel: or how could her brother have married his second wife there in 2001 if it didn't exist?

A quote from: Princess Diana Exhibit

"In December 2001, he married the former Caroline Freud (née Hutton), whom he had known since his university days at Oxford. Their wedding took place in the private chapel at Althorp. "

In addition I found information that during the times of Raine Spencer the chapel was used as storage room but that the current earl Spencer restored it to its function after his father's death. Considering this information, I wouldn't wonder if he thought the chapel a suitable place for Diana.

Probably it's not open to the public, but existing it does.

Another info about this chapel's organ:

When the Earl Spencer installed an early nineteenth-century chamber-organ in the chapel of his house at Althorp near Northampton in 1992, he took his place in a long history of such small British organs.
The chamber-organ now at Althorp was discovered in the parish church of Meriden near Coventry; both its builder and original home are unknown, but it seems to date from about 1810-1815. The alterations carried out on it were probably carried out by J. Charles Lee, a local organ-builder in a small way of business at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. At his hands the organ had suffered many of the alterations described above - the bass compass was shortened to C, (though the soundboard remains intact) and a thirty-note pedal-board added, complete with Bourdon; new bellows; and many of the treble pipes replaced with others of a later date, to obtain more power; and the electric blower, too large for its job.
Michael Latham has put right what he could from a conservationist point of view: the pedals have gone, and the lower panels of the case have been repaired and replaced; soundboard restored, pallets re-leathered, and bass half-octave of kets replaced - we all look forward to the time when the pipes belonging to them can be made and inserted. The bellows have been re-leathered, and all pipes have been cleaned and set on speech. The organ is much appreciated by all who hear it.
[Acta Organologica 25, 1997, 97-104]

GillW 08-21-2007 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 655451)
Of course Althorp has a chapel: or how could her brother have married his second wife there in 2001 if it didn't exist?

A quote from: Princess Diana Exhibit

"In December 2001, he married the former Caroline Freud (née Hutton), whom he had known since his university days at Oxford. Their wedding took place in the private chapel at Althorp. "

In addition I found information that during the times of Raine Spencer the chapel was used as storage room but that the current earl Spencer restored it to its function after his father's death. Considering this information, I wouldn't wonder if he thought the chapel a suitable place for Diana.

Probably it's not open to the public, but existing it does.

Another info about this chapel's organ:

When the Earl Spencer installed an early nineteenth-century chamber-organ in the chapel of his house at Althorp near Northampton in 1992, he took his place in a long history of such small British organs.
The chamber-organ now at Althorp was discovered in the parish church of Meriden near Coventry; both its builder and original home are unknown, but it seems to date from about 1810-1815. The alterations carried out on it were probably carried out by J. Charles Lee, a local organ-builder in a small way of business at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. At his hands the organ had suffered many of the alterations described above - the bass compass was shortened to C, (though the soundboard remains intact) and a thirty-note pedal-board added, complete with Bourdon; new bellows; and many of the treble pipes replaced with others of a later date, to obtain more power; and the electric blower, too large for its job.
Michael Latham has put right what he could from a conservationist point of view: the pedals have gone, and the lower panels of the case have been repaired and replaced; soundboard restored, pallets re-leathered, and bass half-octave of kets replaced - we all look forward to the time when the pipes belonging to them can be made and inserted. The bellows have been re-leathered, and all pipes have been cleaned and set on speech. The organ is much appreciated by all who hear it.
[Acta Organologica 25, 1997, 97-104]

Even so, I can't imagine him getting married wiht his sister's coffin propped in the corner.....And it still doesn't account for all the houshold & estate staff present when the coffin arrived back at Althorp, watching it being taken to the island (even though they were not allowed ONTO the island for the interment) AND the undertaker's staff transporting it onto the island and putting it into the grave. There would have been some leak, somewhere, by now that there was a cover up.

Once buried, as we have discussed elsewhere, it would be illegal to then remove the coffin from the ground & relocate it - not to mention the enourmous task of raising a lead lined coffin and getting it back across a lake, where the bridge was speadily removed by the army (who built it) - you can't do that with smoke & mirrors. Earl Spencer was pictured the same week rowing across to the island to transport the floral tributes left at the estate gates...

Lily97 08-21-2007 12:21 PM

Althorp
 
I have just returned from a trip to Althorp. It does indeed have a private chapel that used to be public for the village. I found the island to be a very peaceful site and indeed there were flowers there for Diana. Like Gill stated you could hear birds, the wind blew, you could sit down and reflect on how you felt. I enjoyed the films that were shown of her as a little girl, as a woman and of her wedding. Her wedding gown and dresses brought back such memories. The whole display went from her childhood forwards to the island.

I was staying in London so of course I went to where she was wed and where her funeral took place. I also visited Kensington Palace where Mario Testino's photographs were on display. There you could sign books but I didn't see any at Althorp. I did see a room full of how many condolence books had been signed at her death!

I personally am not a fan of Charles Spencer but I must say Althorp is tastefully done and a quite a tribute to Diana. I am not a fanatic fan but if not for Althorp there is no other place to go and pay your respects.

In my opinion, they should leave her be. To be honest, she really isn't there anymore. :angel:

Lily

GillW 08-22-2007 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lily97 (Post 655733)
I have just returned from a trip to Althorp. It does indeed have a private chapel that used to be public for the village. I found the island to be a very peaceful site and indeed there were flowers there for Diana. Like Gill stated you could hear birds, the wind blew, you could sit down and reflect on how you felt. I enjoyed the films that were shown of her as a little girl, as a woman and of her wedding. Her wedding gown and dresses brought back such memories. The whole display went from her childhood forwards to the island.

I was staying in London so of course I went to where she was wed and where her funeral took place. I also visited Kensington Palace where Mario Testino's photographs were on display. There you could sign books but I didn't see any at Althorp. I did see a room full of how many condolence books had been signed at her death!

I personally am not a fan of Charles Spencer but I must say Althorp is tastefully done and a quite a tribute to Diana. I am not a fanatic fan but if not for Althorp there is no other place to go and pay your respects.

In my opinion, they should leave her be. To be honest, she really isn't there anymore. :angel:

Lily

Glad you enjoyed your visit Lily. Althorp is such a beautiful house and estate - did you go around the inside of house too? I love to see the fantastic china and the library shelves and all the paintings. There are some lovely things. How are the gardens this year after our very wet summer - looking good? Did you try anything from the cafe or buy anything in the shop? ANy sign of the Earl or any of his children this year?

Jo of Palatine 08-22-2007 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW (Post 655710)
Even so, I can't imagine him getting married wiht his sister's coffin propped in the corner.....

Anyone marrying in the church in great Bingham is surrounded by dead Spencers... like in so many other churches with graves in them. Still people marry in churches...:smile:

GillW 08-22-2007 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 655935)
Anyone marrying in the church in great Bingham is surrounded by dead Spencers... like in so many other churches with graves in them. Still people marry in churches...:smile:

I refuse to be drawn any further into this silly specualtion - and you can't even get the name of the village right.....

CasiraghiTrio 08-22-2007 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lily97 (Post 655733)
I
I personally am not a fan of Charles Spencer but I must say Althorp is tastefully done and a quite a tribute to Diana. I am not a fanatic fan but if not for Althorp there is no other place to go and pay your respects.

I am impressed by your personal account of Althorp. The media makes it seem like a circus, but you make it sound very subdued, peaceful, and tasteful. I do hope it is so, because Diana did not deserve her final resting place to be a profits-driven Graceland II. I am also not a fan of Lord Spencer (he is pretty creepy) but it sounds like from your account that he or his "people" rather have done a good job. What about the museum? Is it overdone at all? It kind of seems overkill with all the memorabilia (uniforms and letters and such), but maybe in actuality it's presented tastefully. I hope so.

TheTruth 08-22-2007 08:38 AM

I'm sure it's quiet and peaceful on the island. He didn't put her at the view of everyone and that's the most important. At least we know that overthere, nobody can go unless the ones who were dear to her. I don't belive he's a man who exclusively made this for his bank account. I can't think of a brother turning his sister into a public attraction.

CasiraghiTrio 08-22-2007 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 655971)
I'm sure it's quiet and peaceful on the island. He didn't put her at the view of everyone and that's the most important. At least we know that overthere, nobody can go unless the ones who were dear to her. I don't belive he's a man who exclusively made this for his bank account. I can't think of a brother turning his sister into a public attraction.

True, it's not exclusively for his profit, as a portion of the profits go to the Diana fund, right? There are things I respect about him, one being that he is an excellent writer. I have not read his books, but have read excerpts from his books, and his eulogy was profoundly, well written, whatever anyone can and will say about its undertones. He presents himself well, but my only reservation about him, I suppose what keeps my respect in check, is a suspicion that he presents himself rather too well. It's as if he is over-concerned with himself and reflects questionably on the sincerity of his character. I would rather see anyone having cracks in their behavior, a few honest flaws here and there, than to see someone always so perfect.

GillW 08-22-2007 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 655966)
I am impressed by your personal account of Althorp. The media makes it seem like a circus, but you make it sound very subdued, peaceful, and tasteful. I do hope it is so, because Diana did not deserve her final resting place to be a profits-driven Graceland II. I am also not a fan of Lord Spencer (he is pretty creepy) but it sounds like from your account that he or his "people" rather have done a good job. What about the museum? Is it overdone at all? It kind of seems overkill with all the memorabilia (uniforms and letters and such), but maybe in actuality it's presented tastefully. I hope so.

If I can add my bit too, to Lily's lovely account, I can say that I don't find anything there overdone or tacky. The museum is touching, well laid out & interesting. It has a haunting quality - seeing her clothes in large glass cases, yet lacking in the dynamism she brought to them, is very poignant, and there is a lovely film that plays on a loop in that room.

The bookcases Lily mentioned with hundreds of examples of the books of condolences, signed form all over the world, beautifully bound are very touching - always bring a tear to my eye seeing some of the special messages opened for us to read.

Even the items in the shop are obviously chosen with great care and taste, maybe not cheap but that's to do with the quality, not profit making.

It seems annoying to me that so many disparaging remarks about Althorp tend to come from writers who have never been. My first visit was many years ago while the late Earl was still alive. Although there have been many changes since, these have all been to the benefit of a grand estate saved from falling into disrepair but also benefiting those who like to visit. For instance, the landscaped walkway from the car park is now excellent, whereas at one time you had to trudge along a roadway with no footpath.

sirhon11234 08-22-2007 05:53 PM

Out of 5 what would you rate Althorp as GillW?

CasiraghiTrio 08-22-2007 07:43 PM

Thanks for your reply, GillW. After reading your post, I can imagine in my mind walking through the various exhibits of her old uniforms and everything, and I am feeling quite emotional just imagining. I think it must be heart-wrenching to actually walk through the museum, like 10X worse than that horrible painful swelling of the heart when Elton John opened the concert with the backdrop of the Testino pictures. :cry:

sirhon11234 08-22-2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 656198)
Thanks for your reply, GillW. After reading your post, I can imagine in my mind walking through the various exhibits of her old uniforms and everything, and I am feeling quite emotional just imagining. I think it must be heart-wrenching to actually walk through the museum, like 10X worse than that horrible painful swelling of the heart when Elton John opened the concert with the backdrop of the Testino pictures. :cry:

You were sad at the opening of the concert, I couldn't stop smiling when Elton opened the concert with Testino's pictures in the background. :smile:

TheTruth 08-22-2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio (Post 656198)
Thanks for your reply, GillW. After reading your post, I can imagine in my mind walking through the various exhibits of her old uniforms and everything, and I am feeling quite emotional just imagining. I think it must be heart-wrenching to actually walk through the museum, like 10X worse than that horrible painful swelling of the heart when Elton John opened the concert with the backdrop of the Testino pictures. :cry:

I undestand too. I'm quite emotional (maybe too much) and it would be tough to go to a place like this. Not only for Diana, but even when I go see some graves of persons I knew, even barely, it brakes my heart. :sad:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises