20th Anniversary of the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: August 31, 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I have read the same things that shastalucie has pointed out but again, there's no way of really knowing whether these things occurred or not. It does sound plausible to me though as something a 15 year old would think and feel in the aftermath of a divorce. I can only cite my own example for this. My kids were all teenagers when their parents split up and divorced and all of a sudden there was mom on one hand and dad on the other hand.

There were times mom was the bad guy and times that dad was the bad guy. There were times my kids felt they had to denigrate their dad when they were around me. I'm sure they felt they had to do that around their dad too. Its hard to make teenagers understand that a divorce is the best thing sometimes for the peace and serenity for both parents and never means that they love their children any less.

William and Harry had been dealing with a very acrimonious split between their parents for quite a few years before Diana's death and were shuffled between the two parents a lot. They went from the vacation with the Al-Fayeds to Balmoral that summer and were at Balmoral when Diana died. I think if (and I say if because we really don't know) William had shown a lot of displeasure towards his mom as been reported, that could have really been a traumatic issue when his mother died so suddenly. Imagine what the thoughts would be if William's last memories of talking with his mother were ones of displeasure? That's a hard thing to swallow knowing that their last words may not have been "I love you" although I'm sure that they did.

Twenty years down the road and coming to deal with those times and the sudden death of their mother as adults may have given them more insight and understanding of their parents then they had as teenagers. For the most part, I think teenagers go through a process of beginning to see their parents as real people with flaws and quirks and positives and negatives as they grow older. William and Harry were just not at that point yet when their mother died. Her death made things all the more confusing for them and harder to deal with.

We just cannot assume that what William and Harry thought then and how they saw things at the time of the accident as the way they see and think about things now. With the passing years came understanding of both their parents. One thing that doesn't change though through all this confusion is the love they feel for both parents. Love for parents is something that is unconditional and that love accepts them warts and all.
 
:previous:Agreed. The way that we view our parents in our childhood, adolescence and early adulthood tends to change over time. I'd hardly expect that the brothers would still be holding onto the same opinions about their parents that they did in 1997. They know them now as other adults and not just as their parents.

Whatever William and Harry were thinking about dad and mum in the summer of 1997, is likely to have evolved as they have matured.
 
You can't blame them for trying. Twenty years of dirty laundry and the continual public vilification of their father is a terrible burden to be carried forever for them, their father and Camilla.

Unfortunately, now the media will just twist everything remotely nice they said and heap even more on Charles and Camilla because saying nice things about their father is obviously a sign of brainwashing, coercion, or some other unsavoury skulduggery.

Well, it was worth a crack boys.

Surely the heartfelt documentaries William and Harry recorded are also to do with the distress they've felt over twenty years as their mother's reputation and memory has been attacked and besmirched again and again. Unlike their father and stepmother, Diana is no longer alive to be able to respond to any of it, nor to get sympathetic authors to do it for her.

They said in clips before the docos were aired that they felt that they wanted to protect Diana, to turn the focus on her work, charities, causes, the good Diana did in the world, as well as share their memories of her as a mum.

If the primary aim of the documentaries was to talk about Charles and Camilla and put their relationship and reputation into perspective from William and Harry's POV, then it failed miserably. As we know, Charles and Camilla weren't mentioned at all in the first two documentaries. He was in the second, by Harry, for a few moments, although we haven't seen this last documentary of course. I'm looking forward to it.
 
Payton
You say "no one knows what really happened at that time " and then tell us Charles loves them and are a close family so if we don't know what happened because we weren't there how did we know what sort of father Charles is ??

How can you even ask such a question....good grief, He helped raised those boys from birth, he has always shown his love for them, he is their father for heaven's sake Rob, no man in his right mind would not love his children and even though he and Diana had problems IMHO believe he was just as devastated as they were by the death of Diana.......shell shock is what I believe the entire family went through and did not recover over night either. I will never in a zillion years doubt his love for both his sons.......never and neither should anyone with a sense of decency or morals doubt that love. Just because someone is not mentioned or pictures are not shown does not mean there is no love for William or Harry, both those boys have been through hell for the media has yet to let them alone..they have turned out brilliantly and have just a strong sense of family values and know that they must stand above all the crap this is dealt to them from haters and the media...just how could any of us get through what they have gone through.....we are not in the public eye like they are and that is a millions times worse for them......always watching yr back, what you say, how you dress, who you are with.........nothing they do is right for the haters or the media .......it is like be damned if you do and be damned if you dont.......my heart goes out to them for this will be something they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives everything the anniversary of their mother's death appears ....when will the haters and media let these boys alone to live their own lives? Same thing same time next year and the year after....:bang::mad:😠 this is for something I can not say here:censored:

No one has to like either of them yet what have they done that they deserve to be targets for the haters and media..........?
 
Where have you got this information? Who did you hear it from ? Etc etc

It was in The Diana Chronicles on page 11 "He felt mounting dismay at his mother's relationship with with Dodi"..."The pictures of her frolicking about the Jonikal in August led to a blowup on the phone with his mother."

And also on page 463 after Diana's death, "The young prince had had a troubled night perhaps due to the hard words on the phone with his mother...now this terrible news meant they would never hug each other and say sorry."
 
This is just my opinion and feeling, no proof as such. However, I feel that because of the acrimonious end to the Wales marriage the boys probably felt very uncomfortable speaking to their father with regard to their innermost feelings about all the good times with their mum, the lovely person that she was and how she made them feel. And they certainly wouldn't have approached Camilla with any of that!

Of course, they had each other, thank God, but what with the discomfort, and the 'stiff upper lip, carry on regardless' attitude of the BRF, I believe that as the years passed the brothers closed off about their mother and gradually stopped speaking about her to others. Perhaps that's where the Fellowes/McCorqudales could have helped, but I don't think they saw that much of them.

Over the last few months the dam wall has broken a good bit, and all sorts of feelings are coming to the surface, including sympathy for their mother's plight in those lonely years after the separation, with Charles lackeys like Soames and others attacking her in the press and the media turning on her.

I don't mean that I think that William and Harry hate their father or even dislike him much of the time, but as we've said, families are complex, Charles is a very entitled individual, very conscious of his position, and I think things have sometimes been quite difficult for his sons to articulate their feelings, about the marriage, their mother, their stepmother and about him.

I do think the brothers have been conflicted about their parents, the marriage and how it all went down, including Camilla's part in it. As Charles won't brook any criticism at all of his wife, that adds to it all. But I certainly feel that William and Harry's feelings have evolved over time and are still doing so, and that has probabably meant strains with their father and stepmother, especially this year. Jmo.
 
Last edited:
Curryong - You did a really good job of articulating a very likely scenario...lots of love and unavoidable feelings of conflict too. A side note, I always gave William enormous credit for inviting Camilla's granddaughter to be a member of his wedding party, due to all the mixed emotions he must feel.
 
Most likely by the time William was planning his wedding, he had the opportunity to really get to know Camilla and found out that she wasn't the ogre she was painted out to be and formed a good relationship with her. This is one thing I tried to impress on my kids. Loving a step parent and respecting them and liking them and forming a good relationship is in no way disloyal to the other parent in a divorce.

I'm sure that if Diana had lived and found someone to share her life with that the boys would also try and form a good relationship with their step father. It comes with maturity.
 
This is just my opinion and feeling, no proof as such. However, I feel that because of the acrimonious end to the Wales marriage the boys probably felt very uncomfortable speaking to their father with regard to their innermost feelings about all the good times with their mum, the lovely person that she was and how she made them feel. And they certainly wouldn't have approached Camilla with any of that!

Of course, they had each other, thank God, but what with the discomfort, and the 'stiff upper lip, carry on regardless' attitude of the BRF, I believe that as the years passed the brothers closed off about their mother and gradually stopped speaking about her to others. Perhaps that's where the Fellowes/McCorqudales could have helped, but I don't think they saw that much of them.

Over the last few months the dam wall has broken a good bit, and all sorts of feelings are coming to the surface, including sympathy for their mother's plight in those lonely years after the separation, with Charles lackeys like Soames and others attacking her in the press and the media turning on her.

I don't mean that I think that William and Harry hate their father or even dislike him much of the time, but as we've said, families are complex, Charles is a very entitled individual, very conscious of his position, and I think things have sometimes been quite difficult for his sons to articulate their feelings, about the marriage, their mother, their stepmother and about him.

I do think the brothers have been conflicted about their parents, the marriage and how it all went down, including Camilla's part in it. As Charles won't brook any criticism at all of his wife, that adds to it all. But I certainly feel that William and Harry's feelings have evolved over time and are still doing so, and that has probabably meant strains with their father and stepmother, especially this year. Jmo.



Excellent post [emoji253]
 
Last edited:
Fabulous article on Diana by the renowned novelist Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall, etc.); "An icon ‘only loosely based on the young woman born Diana Spencer’ "

Link

Apart from the contents of the article, even I -a non native English user- could recognize the well-composed sentences, the intelligent phrasing and the refreshing angle from which Hilary Mantel reviewed the phenomenon "Diana".

A fellow poster remarked (warned?) that Hilary Mantel was a republican. That may be so, this did not stop this Pulitzer Prize laureate to write an article which easily rose above all other in the endless stream of publications. Maybe the fact that Hilary Mantel has no warm feelings for the idea that a head of state is not chosen but determined by birth, actually helped her to keep a healthy distance to "the topic" and resulted in one of the best articles I ever read about the third daughter of a countryside aristocrat who became a prisoner herself from her own world famous imago.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the relationship father/boys/stepmother etc we cannot forget that in this family there is absolutely no option not to get along or be pragmatic.

In an average family, Charles probably would never have married Diana and if, they'd divorced much sooner and one or both boys would have broken with either father or stepmother or even mother, if still alive, the whole family broken down.

Whatever has happened, they HAVE to get along and find a way with each other therefore it's impossible to guess how the relations would be if there was no public to comment on it or judge or expect professional duty.
 
Thanks for finding that excellent article. It is the best one I've ever read commemorating Diana. It made her real. It made her human. It puts things into a clear and focused perspective.

Very, very well written and worth the read.
 
Ms Mantel's article is indeed fabulous, well balanced and fair. A 'far cry' from the mud slinging acrimony being peddled elsewhere during this ghastly 'Diana-fest'..
 
Fabulous article on Diana by the renowned novelist Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall, etc.); "An icon ‘only loosely based on the young woman born Diana Spencer’ "

Link

Amazing article indeed !
 
With regard to the relationship father/boys/stepmother etc we cannot forget that in this family there is absolutely no option not to get along or be pragmatic.

In an average family, Charles probably would never have married Diana and if, they'd divorced much sooner and one or both boys would have broken with either father or stepmother or even mother, if still alive, the whole family broken down.

Whatever has happened, they HAVE to get along and find a way with each other therefore it's impossible to guess how the relations would be if there was no public to comment on it or judge or expect professional duty.


Wow cynical. Not all divorces end in war of the roses. If they had been a normal family, yes a divorce likely sooner. And quite likely a lot cleaner. No reason to think the only reason the boys talk to their father is because they are royalty. Divorces happen every day and don't all, or even most, end in the ostracizing of one parent.

Yes they have a choice to get along or not. Yes in public they have to. But in private is another matter. And it is evident the boys not only have a relationship with their father but Camilla and her family. Like attending her private family birthday. No public requirement to do so.
 
I'm not saying they are faking their relations. But the fact that they have to get along because of the position they are in probably helped to smoothen things out in private while without the spotlight some things might have escalated. You try to forgive because what else can you do, and get along at least in a civil manner. In the long term, time does heal not all but some wounds, and you just get on with it.
Thats what I think everybody did, I am sure there are some wounds that will never heal or questions never answered, and you cannot undo things. I believe they all get along fine but do not come too close without being invited to do so.
 
I have read the same things that shastalucie has pointed out but again, there's no way of really knowing whether these things occurred or not. It does sound plausible to me though as something a 15 year old would think and feel in the aftermath of a divorce. I can only cite my own example for this. My kids were all teenagers when their parents split up and divorced and all of a sudden there was mom on one hand and dad on the other hand.

There were times mom was the bad guy and times that dad was the bad guy. There were times my kids felt they had to denigrate their dad when they were around me. I'm sure they felt they had to do that around their dad too. Its hard to make teenagers understand that a divorce is the best thing sometimes for the peace and serenity for both parents and never means that they love their children any less.

William and Harry had been dealing with a very acrimonious split between their parents for quite a few years before Diana's death and were shuffled between the two parents a lot. They went from the vacation with the Al-Fayeds to Balmoral that summer and were at Balmoral when Diana died. I think if (and I say if because we really don't know) William had shown a lot of displeasure towards his mom as been reported, that could have really been a traumatic issue when his mother died so suddenly. Imagine what the thoughts would be if William's last memories of talking with his mother were ones of displeasure? That's a hard thing to swallow knowing that their last words may not have been "I love you" although I'm sure that they did.

Twenty years down the road and coming to deal with those times and the sudden death of their mother as adults may have given them more insight and understanding of their parents then they had as teenagers. For the most part, I think teenagers go through a process of beginning to see their parents as real people with flaws and quirks and positives and negatives as they grow older. William and Harry were just not at that point yet when their mother died. Her death made things all the more confusing for them and harder to deal with.

We just cannot assume that what William and Harry thought then and how they saw things at the time of the accident as the way they see and think about things now. With the passing years came understanding of both their parents. One thing that doesn't change though through all this confusion is the love they feel for both parents. Love for parents is something that is unconditional and that love accepts them warts and all.

Are there any books on Charles and Diana's relationship that are credible? I would like to read one but I want to avoid those that take sides.
 
Are there any books on Charles and Diana's relationship that are credible? I would like to read one but I want to avoid those that take sides.

None of them will be unbiased ...however if you want their personal thoughts/views read the two they were directly involved in (the Morton and Dimbley books).

Past that there's dozens of them out there (Her former bodyguard wrote one, Wharfe). Not sure I'd give them too much weight though...again, just opinion.



LaRae
 
There are a lot of books out there on Diana and they are written by people that have researched her, have known her and have worked for her. My advice is to read quite a few of them and form your own opinion of what you feel rings true to you and what doesn't. If I had to suggest the top three of the books I've read on Diana they would be:

1. Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess by Sally Bedell Smith.

2. The Housekeeper's Diary by Wendy Berry

3. Diana: Closely Guarded Secret by Ken Wharfe

The reason I picked these three is because the first one is written by a woman that is an excellent biographer in my opinion. She did her research very well and talked with a lot of people that knew Diana. The other two are people that knew Diana by working with her or for her and, to me, are unbiased.

Of course this is just my opinion on reading material. Others here may have other favorites for their own personal reasons. There is a *lot* of information out there if you look for it. :D
 
THe Daily Mail has an article re Hilary Mantel's great piece. Im not giving the link.

The twitter link is headlined:

Hilary Mantel says Diana was 'squirming, twitching' in last interviews.

Thats it! As a position statement which is normally what a headline is.

Mailonline have done a hatchet job on Mantel before.
 
Mantel is a staunch republican. Not saying it disqualifies her from commenting on Diana but I'm putting it out there for the sake of transparency.
 
THe Daily Mail has an article re Hilary Mantel's great piece. Im not giving the link.

The twitter link is headlined:

Hilary Mantel says Diana was 'squirming, twitching' in last interviews.

Thats it! As a position statement which is normally what a headline is.

Mailonline have done a hatchet job on Mantel before.

In the process of writing that headline, the Fail also is doing a hatchet job on Diana. Shows the quality of that publication doesn't it? Its sad that the reason this publication is still in business is because there are people out there that feed on this kind of thing. :bang:
 
its a tabloid newspaper. they are not quality journalism... Peopele read them for a light read....
 
In the process of writing that headline, the Fail also is doing a hatchet job on Diana. Shows the quality of that publication doesn't it? Its sad that the reason this publication is still in business is because there are people out there that feed on this kind of thing. :bang:

Some so called "Diana experts", like Richard kay, are behind the Mail and they used the late Princess as a cash machine for years ...
 
:previous: It seems to me that the Daily Fail is almost even handed in their handling of hate when it comes to Diana. Charles, Camilla and anyone that has written a dispassionate book about her are all routinely trashed. Morton is magic and Dimbleby is trash, and so on.

Basically, Diana is a cash cow they have milked for 25 - 30 years and I can't see that changing. Hillary Mantel's article is not so different to the position that the DF take so I can't see them seriously attacking her.
 
:previous: It seems to me that the Daily Fail is almost even handed in their handling of hate when it comes to Diana. Charles, Camilla and anyone that has written a dispassionate book about her are all routinely trashed. Morton is magic and Dimbleby is trash, and so on.

Basically, Diana is a cash cow they have milked for 25 - 30 years and I can't see that changing. Hillary Mantel's article is not so different to the position that the DF take so I can't see them seriously attacking her.

I do agree. Some members of the media have been milking everything out of Diana for many years. It's rather sickening.
 
Back
Top Bottom