Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death?

[Duchess]

I thought at first that she didn't but looking back I think she was trying to do the best thing - look after her grandsons. Over her life one of the few things she's been criticized for was her hands-off approach to motherhood. When she tried to be a hands-on grandmother in the days following Diana's death she was roundly criticized for not looking after her subjects.

 

[HMTLove23]

I watched the movie 'the queen' and considering her position and traditions of the past, I think she acted appropriately in the days after Diana's death.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't think it's up to anyone to judge the Queen's reaction. Really isn't anyone's business IMO. I think 10 years on people see behind the bangwagon jumping and hysteria and realise it was unfair for anyone to judge.

 

[Duchess]

the reason for my change of heart is largely to do with the fact that i have a daughter and understand more that children are the most important factor in any family decision. i wouldn't say that's jumping on the bandwagon so much as it's a better understanding of the emotions that were being felt.

 

[msleiman]

I think that is some ways she did and some ways she did not. I think that we must understand that is does not matter to the public what the Queen really thought about Diana, they wanted them to say and do something. I do not remember where I heard it, but I think Charles said something like we are dealing with the Diana that the public knew, not the Diana that we knew. I know about history and all, but I think that you sometimes have to do things that you do not like to do. I really felt bad for the Queen, she was in a bad spot.

 

[Roslyn]

I believe her primary duty was to William and Harry, so I believe she did the right thing staying at Balmoral. She could have made a brief statement from Balmoral though, expressing her sadness but stating the boys' needs were paramount. I could well be wrong but I think that if she had done that, the public anger might not have developed to the stage it did.

 

[COUNTESS]

I think she did the best she could have done, which was within the range of how she did things. Things change and it took time and persuasion to seek the change. It is very hard to judge a person, when you do not have their personality or background. What is more interesting , is that 10 years later this is even a discussion. She did what she did, she has gone on and that is that.

 

[Duchess]

She could have made a brief statement from Balmoral though, expressing her sadness but stating the boys' needs were paramount. I could well be wrong but I think that if she had done that, the public anger might not have developed to the stage it did.

i think you're absolutely right. i wonder why that didn't occur to her or her advisers to do something like that?

 

[COUNTESS]

i think you're absolutely right. i wonder why that didn't occur to her or her advisers to do something like that?

Because "others" are not paramount in their lives.

 

[Elspeth]

I think you're right, Roslyn, but I'm afraid that with the press looking to deflect public anger from itself and finding the royal family a useful alternative for that purpose, such a statement would have run a risk of being attacked on the grounds that the Queen was trying to use the princes to excuse her own responsibility and lack of grief; if the press had played their cards right, it could have backfired very nastily on the Queen.

 

[Roslyn]

I think you're right, Roslyn, but I'm afraid that with the press looking to deflect public anger from itself and finding the royal family a useful alternative for that purpose, such a statement would have run a risk of being attacked on the grounds that the Queen was trying to use the princes to excuse her own responsibility and lack of grief; if the press had played their cards right, it could have backfired very nastily on the Queen.

Yes. I was forgetting the press. Her Majesty was in a very difficult position.

 

[QueenMaharet]

Unfortunetly The Queen is and has always been in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" position....she is always going to piss of someone no matter what she does, but I'm still appalled at the public's reaction to what she did. How dare people assume that their grief is more painful than the gried of a child losing his mother? How can you honestly demand that a family come and comfort you when there are children there that have lost their mother? I don't care how much you "thought" you loved Diana, the fact of the matter is that you didn't know her personally. She wasn't your mother, she wasn't your family member, sure she may have had an emotional impact on your life, you may have cared about her, but again, how can you assume that you cared more about her than her children did? It would be like me demanding that a distant cousin come and comfort me because I'm grieving for her mother, that I've never met, and only seen in pictures, and only heard on TV. I don't understand how people can claim more attachment to a woman than her own children can. Especially when said children were obviously very close to their mother. It makes no sense.

 

[Royal Fan]

Considering The Era in which she came of Age yes I Belive She acted As she shouldve at the time Plus their were her Grandsons to consider I Can also Safetly say Probably no one in my Family would agree with me lol

 

[pinkie40]

In his prewedding interview, Prince Edward made a comment on his reaction to the death of Princess Diana. My interpretation of his choice of words and his body language validated I was in disagreement with his perspective of Diana.

Which leads me to believe Diana's carefully crafted and much edited presence created by her handlers was radically different than the truth of her relationship to the royal family.

To place my standards and "shoulds" on the action of the royals that week is to miss out on the very strong message they were sending. They were not going to be bullied into honoring the Diana we knew, but were reacting with surprising honesty to the Diana they knew.

 

[Russophile]

I believe Her Majesty acted appropriately. It wasn't in her nature to become overly riddled with grief. I would imagine quite a lot was going on with regards to William and Harry. If you remember their brief "walkabout" at Balmoral they met a lot of the greivers. I would think that Her Majesty and Prince Philip and Charles were all trying to prepare them for this unfortunate event. They were quite thrusted into the public eye and aquited themselves wonderfully. I don't doubt that The Queen had much to do with that.

 

[rebbevb]

when i saw the movie The Queen it made me love her even more and understand what she went through during the death of diana at one point in the movie queen broke her suv and called help then started to cry and to me that was touch because she isnt prefect she is HUMAN and she was doing what she thought was best. Now Diana was not a princess anymore even through she kept the title after her divorce which i thought that she should have gone back to Lady Diana i mean she was not a royal anymore she was married into the royal family but once she divorced Prince Charles she wasnt part of the royal family anymore even though she is the mother of the future king of england. Diana wasnt a royal anymore at the time of her death so thats why the queen with the flag the royal standerd is only for members of the royal family.

 

[branchg]

The press crucified her, but The Queen handled it as best she could, given the terrible tragedy of her two young grandsons losing their mother prematurely. That had to be her primary concern.

I also do not believe HM was not mourning the loss of Diana. Sarah Ferguson made it clear later that the entire royal family was "shattered" by Diana's death. She certainly is no friend of the royals, given the treatment she has endured.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

A line from the movie The Queen expresses my opinion about this. The character for Tony Blair said: "There's something nasty about the way everyone is bullying her."
I remember feeling at the time that it seemed harsh to be pressuring the royal family so much after such a terrible shock of a tragedy. Everyone was in shock, and above all, the royal family was. It wasn't fair how the press went about (and how the public followed suit) treating them. Unfortunately, these nasty shocks in life often bring out the worst in people.

 

[pinkie40]

We really don't have to agree with the reaction of the royal family. Diana meant something to us and she meant something different to them. Her Majesty's relationship with Diana, in the words of Lady Mountbatten, was "strained". It would have been "nice" for the public to have been thanked through a Palace issued statement for the thoughts and prayer for the young princes. The silence gave way to too much speculation. Even Downing Street could have stepped in and asked the public to allow a respectful amount of time and space for the royals to come to grips with such an enormous calamity. Her Majesty was saddled with a heavy load.....and had to shoulder this on her own...(it seemed to us at the time).

I accept and respect the notion the royal family has a facade for the public and choose to express themselves in deeper emotion in private.

 

[Russophile]

Well that makes sense, doesn't it Pinkie? They are so, SO very public, they haven't much got anything of their OWN to really OWN. Emotions should belong to THEM.

 

[pinkie40]

Matt Lauer asked William and Harry point black why they didn't just cry buckets as they walked behind the coffin and the articulate Prince Harry said we have our public faces and our private emotions.

If we the public want to place blame, then yes, we should hold accountable the office at Downing Street or the office at Buckingham Palace for not an acknowledgement of the public's reaction but I think they might have been 1) taken by surprise by the huge people on the streets of London wailing in pain.....not to mention the reaction of the rest of the world and 2) consumed with the logistics of organizing a huge, huge funeral with all these different factions.

Let's step back and put some logic into this.

 

[lilibet80]

I understand your positions fully. However, what the Royal Family did not understand was that to the public Diana was and will always be a member of the royal family. This could have been handled so easily if only someone had advised the Queen on the first day to make a statement right from Balmoral to the effect that they all join with the public in their grief over the loss of Diana and because of the boys they feel it best to stay at Balmoral to tend to them. It was the emptiness and lack of response that got the world upset. It was the wrong decision, but the Queen is entitled to put a foot wrong once in 50 years. Let us remember that she was not only in shock herself, she had her grandsons walking around like zombies and her son screaming out on the moors; not to mention having to deal with the Spencer family and their wrath.

 

[BeatrixFan]

However, what the Royal Family did not understand was that to the public Diana was and will always be a member of the royal family.

Actually, quite the opposite. At the time of her death, she wasn't. The Royal Family understood that, it was the moronic crowds with nothing better to do that forgot it. As to always being a member of the Royal Family, one ceases to be anything when one dies - unless you're Liza Minelli in which case you marry a potato.

 

[Christo's Girl]

I always have thought that a private funeral would have been more appropriate for Diana. It would have saved her son's alot of grief. I don't know which side of the family, the Royal or Spencers that wanted this huge event.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

The big public funeral event was really a PR fiasco. The celebrities on the invitation list who hardly knew Diana, perhaps not at all beyond the most marginal social acquaintance. Elton John's tearful performance. Earl Spencer's long-winded eulogy. To be sure, there were some decent things about it, but by and large, it was a PR stunt and fiasco. Although exactly for whom the PR was intended, I still can't fathom with any certainty.
Tony Blair's new government? Maybe. "People's gov't" mourns "People's Princess"?
The royal family? Doubtful. Not much to gain on their end....
The Spencer family? Perhaps.... a prelude to turning Althorp into a fantasia of sorts?
Everyone seemed wanting to associate themselves with Diana to make them look good.

 

[debzone]

I always have thought that a private funeral would have been more appropriate for Diana. It would have saved her son's alot of grief. I don't know which side of the family, the Royal or Spencers that wanted this huge event.

Neither wanted it really. The Spencers wanted a small family ceremony The Royal Family felt that way too--as Diana was no longer officially a member of the family. The reaction of the public made that an impossible idea though.

As for the Queen's action--I think she did the right thing. She put family first before duty. While it might have been comforting for the masses to have her return to London--it wouldn't have brought much comfort to her grandsons. That moment they needed to be comforted and made to feel safe. At that moment--she obviously felt it more important to be a comforting grandmother.

Truthfully, no matter what she did--it was going to sit wrong for someone--somewhere. Far better to be criticized for being a loving grandparent than a dutiful monarch, IMO.

 

[wbenson]

I always find it strange that the very elements that criticize the Queen as cold and unfeeling for "putting her role as Queen before her role as mother" or whatever they say were the same ones that demanded she walk out on her grandsons and come to London to dance to their tune.

 

[RubyPrincess168]

After watching 'The Queen' I think she handled it very well. I thought she was one who put duty before family over the years, so it would seem strange to suddenly put family over duty. But Diana's death was a family matter. If William & Harry needed a few days to grieve privately before facing the public again, then I applaud Granny for taking the public lashing for her delayed response. Diana showed the royal family a better way to parent, and maybe the Queen took notice.

 

[Russophile]

As to always being a member of the Royal Family, one ceases to be anything when one dies - unless you're Liza Minelli in which case you marry a potato.

You forgot that dingbat Shirley MacLaine!!
I would have thought that William and Harry were rather stunned walking behind the casket. I would have been. And when the service actually started, the whole thing hit and then they let their emotions out.
I know Matt Lauer is a reporter, but boy, that's a pretty rude question IMO.

 

[lilibet80]

Diana and the Royal Family

Actually, quite the opposite. At the time of her death, she wasn't. The Royal Family understood that, it was the moronic crowds with nothing better to do that forgot it. As to always being a member of the Royal Family, one ceases to be anything when one dies - unless you're Liza Minelli in which case you marry a potato.

I am fully aware that she was no longer a "member" of the Royal Family and the "moronic" crowds thought differently. It was also the "moronic" crowds that were starting to murmur about the need for a Queen who appeared uncaring and uninterested when the world was going crazy in an unprecedented outpouring of grief. You do not have to agree with this, but just look at the outcome. In the end the Queen, against her better judgment, did the best thing she could have done to assuage this feeling among the "moronic" crowds.