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

[casualfan]

But, rightly or wrongly, the public had seen Diana as someone who had a personality that was warmer than the RF so the reserved, quiet, dignified, "stiff upper lip" response seemed at odds with the "warmer" personality Diana seemed to exude.

 

[VictoriaB]

the media were the ones who "panicked" and started to print all sorts of rubbish and whip everyone up into a frenzy.

Fingers were being pointed at the media as being complicit in Diana's death - if not the organised media such as newspapers and tv news, at least at the paparazzi. Charles Spencer certainly made that point in his initial statement. I think it suited the media to distract attention from them by attacking the Royal Family. I wasn't in Britain at the time but I wonder how much of the criticism of the Royal Family was initiated by the crowds and reported by the media and how much was initiated by the media who influenced the crowds.

I'd be interested in the opinions of those who were there.

 

[Curryong]

I was there. I remember thinking as I walked around that a very strange atmosphere prevailed. I wrote to family back home in Australia about it. Of course, with the exception of the murder of Lord Mountbatten, nothing like this had ever really happened to a Royal before. It was the most tremendous shock to everyone, the BRF, the Spencers, those that knew Diana, those that didn't. I think shock drove a lot of the opinions and reactions of people at the time.

No-one expected a beautiful and vital young woman of 36, a mother of two young sons, to die suddenly and horribly as she did. Members of the media were just as shocked, and reacted to possible attacks on them by turning on the royal family. I can remember people afterwards saying "Im never going to buy a women's magazine again" because of the way the papparazi and Press had behaved.

As I've said, I walked around central London for the week of the funeral for several hours almost every day. I heard people say various things about Charles, to the effect that if he had tried harder and given up Camilla, if he had been kinder, then Diana wouldn't have been in Paris that night, wouldn't have died. Illogical, perhaps, but that's the way people thought.

I never heard any of the complaints about the Queen being away at Balmoral, not at Buckingham Palace, made much of by the media, or attacks on the Queen being absent at all, except for one man who stated that he wished the queen was in London 'to see all this' (the flowers etc.)

I never saw any baying for blood, any desire to see the Queen 'pay' for Diana's death. I think the papers did try and play up a feeling of a lack of concern on the royals' part. This may have been felt among some of the populace but not expressed. I don't know but I didn't hear anything of that sort.

As I've posted before, there was undeniable grief, sorrow that this young woman had her life prematurely ended, and great concern for William and Harry's welfare, a feeling that has lasted, I think. In a way, people thought of the boys as members of their own families. These were the predominant feelings I remember and they were heartfelt, not media driven.

 

[TLLK]

Thank you for sharing your memories from that sad time in August 1997 Curryong.

 

[Denville]

No there was no "baying for blood" or indeed crowds going on as if they owned Diana and not her family. But there was certainly a feeling which I shared that the RF and Charles had not appreciated her, that they - or at least the older ones - were not unduly grieved at her death and that people wanted some kind of statement from them, at least a decent if hypocritical show that they shared some of the people's grief at Di's early tragic death...

 

[Osipi]

No there was no "baying for blood" or indeed crowds going on as if they owned Diana and not her family. But there was certainly a feeling which I shared that the RF and Charles had not appreciated her, that they - or at least the older ones - were not unduly grieved at her death and that people wanted some kind of statement from them, at least a decent if hypocritical show that they shared some of the people's grief at Di's early tragic death...

I thought that there was a statement issued by Buckingham Palace not long after the death. Something like the RF was "shocked and distressed" at the death of Diana in Paris.

The royal family found it more important to focus on the two young boys that had their world turned upside down overnight. Would you really think its more important to "hypocritically" pander to the masses?

 

[Iluvbertie]

There was a statement issued on the Sunday morning - which is always overlooked by the fanatics who constantly want to use that week to belittle a grandmother caring for her grandsons.

 

[Denville]

There were plenty of people who could spend time with teh boys, but the queen could have made an effort to show some real feeling about their mother. Im sure it is awkward for them that they know most of the RF have little sympathy for their mother at her early death. And there's a certain amount of "hypocrisy" as you put it,in every public figure's job. The queen IS a public figure, it IS her job to show some solidarity when there is a tragedy. And the first statement was very obviously routine.. She coudl have come to London for a day, seen the flowers and made a broadcast. Im sure she wasn't with the kids 24/7, It seems that Anne's children were the ones who spent most time iwth them.. and that was probalby a help to them.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The Queen, criticized during her life for not spending enough time with her family when they were children, decided to dedicate her time to being with her bereaved grandchildren during their time of need. How would William and Harry have felt if their beloved grandmother left them when they were very sad and vulnerable? To have gone to London early in that horrible week wouldn't have been the right thing to do. Can you imagine the headlines: "Hard-hearted Queen leaves grandchildren during their time of need;" and "Why isn't she with the boys?" Even if the Royal Family were cool to Diana, they still would have been terribly shocked and upset for the children.

 

[Curryong]

Of course it was good that the Queen and Prince Philip were there. However, I don't know how many hours were dedicated specifically to their grandsons.

As has been said, Anne's children Zara and Peter took them out on long bike rides, Tiggy Legge Bourke arrived the day after the death. She was very comfortable with both boys.

Charles's female press secretary was there at Balmoral and part of her memory of the terrible days after Diana's death was sorting through piles of condolence letters that almost immediately started arriving and Harry asking if he could help her open them and read some.

William apparently took a few long walks into the nearby hills by himself. One day in London for the Queen wouldn't have made much difference, especially if Prince Philip stayed at Balmoral.

 

[Osipi]

There were plenty of people who could spend time with teh boys, but the queen could have made an effort to show some real feeling about their mother. Im sure it is awkward for them that they know most of the RF have little sympathy for their mother at her early death. And there's a certain amount of "hypocrisy" as you put it,in every public figure's job. The queen IS a public figure, it IS her job to show some solidarity when there is a tragedy. And the first statement was very obviously routine.. She coudl have come to London for a day, seen the flowers and made a broadcast. Im sure she wasn't with the kids 24/7, It seems that Anne's children were the ones who spent most time iwth them.. and that was probalby a help to them.

If there was anyone that should have really stepped up to the plate for the people following the tragedy in Paris, it wasn't the Queen (ex-mother-in-law), Charles (the ex-husband) or anyone else in the royal family. The main person that represented the nation's shock and grief was none other than the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Come to think of it, did we actually see or hear much from Charles Spencer before the funeral itself. No matter what the country, culture, employment etc, a family is given the time to grieve when there is a death in the family. I like to think that HM would be afforded the same courtesy for her grandchildren.

I stick by the belief that the Queen did the right thing staying at Balmoral with the family. If we really think about it, HM, The Queen paid Diana one of the highest gestures that she, as Queen, could. She, along with the Duke of Edinburgh, attended Diana's funeral. This is something that HM rarely does even for heads of state.

 

[Denville]

She had plenty of time to spend with the grandsons, one day in London would not have made much difference. I dont beleive anyone would say "hard hearted Queen leaves the boys" when there were plenty of other relatives there to look after them, and indeed I doubt if she spent all that much time wtih them anyway. it seems like Peter and Zara Phillips helped out most..and Tiggy. Philip was alos there as Curry says. I dont say the queen is an unloving grandmother but I dont think at that stage, she was spending a lot of time wtih the boys, if only because of the awkward relationship with Diana. I think as she's grown older and they have, she has developed a warmer and closer relationship with the 2 boys, but back then, while Im sure she did spend some time with them I doubt if her being away for a day would have upset them or made them feel lost.

 

[Osipi]

She had plenty of time to spend with the grandsons, one day in London would not have made much difference. I dont beleive anyone would say "hard hearted Queen leaves the boys" when there were plenty of other relatives there to look after them, and indeed I doubt if she spent all that much time wtih them anyway. it seems like Peter and Zara Phillips helped out most..and Tiggy. Philip was alos there as Curry says. I dont say the queen is an unloving grandmother but I dont think at that stage, she was spending a lot of time wtih the boys, if only because of the awkward relationship with Diana. I think as she's grown older and they have, she has developed a warmer and closer relationship with the 2 boys, but back then, while Im sure she did spend some time with them I doubt if her being away for a day would have upset them or made them feel lost.

I think HM was much closer to the boys than you seem to think especially William. During his years at Eton, I've read in several places where he would walk over to Windsor Castle every Sunday for tea with his grandmother. He was getting "royal" lessons.

Regardless, HM made her decision to stay at Balmoral with the family and she shouldn't be criticized for that.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

She had plenty of time to spend with the grandsons, one day in London would not have made much difference. I dont beleive anyone would say "hard hearted Queen leaves the boys" when there were plenty of other relatives there to look after them, and indeed I doubt if she spent all that much time wtih them anyway. it seems like Peter and Zara Phillips helped out most..and Tiggy. Philip was alos there as Curry says. I dont say the queen is an unloving grandmother but I dont think at that stage, she was spending a lot of time wtih the boys, if only because of the awkward relationship with Diana. I think as she's grown older and they have, she has developed a warmer and closer relationship with the 2 boys, but back then, while Im sure she did spend some time with them I doubt if her being away for a day would have upset them or made them feel lost.

There are really been life in these threads again after you and duch_lover_4ever become members here, and I'm just as shocked by your posts as I was over hers.

You have in your posts on several threads here described the Queen as false, a bad grandmother and said that she sent the boys out in the crowd because she knowed that they would not be criticized. This is completely wrong and it angers me that a member of a serious forum like this can write such a thing. (not a criticism of the mods because they are doing a great job)

Queen/Diana relationship:
As Dianas mother, butler and several other people who are more reliable than these two including Dickie and Victoria Arbiter have said: The Queen was very fond of Diana and tried to help her.

Dianas death:
Diana had become quite controversial at the end of her life, and she got a lot of negative press. But many were shocked and saddened by her tragic death and emotion took over.

The Queen then issued a statement, she was there for her grandchildren and she bowed to the coffin.

She also received thousands of supportive letters from the public who said that they didn't agree with the way she was treated by the press.

As cepe wrote: The immediate response of the British people was to turn on the press. So what did the press do? Turn it round and blame HMQ. With hindsight we know what HMQ did in looking after her grandchildren was the right thing.

And as I've said more than one time: Most people today (even journalists) regrets the way they attacked/bullied/humiliated the Queen in the days following Diana's death.

Pro Diana members can honor her memory without committing character assassination of Her Majesty the Queen.

Other members should refrain from saying anything, but one must respond to that kind of posts.

 

[Jacknch]

It's worth remembering that the Queen was much closer to the boys than the British public were or indeed ever will be and therefore she would be far more qualified than anyone else to decide what to do.

Frankly, I cannot imagine the Queen looks back on it all now and wonders whether she made the right decision or not - personally I think it is rather a little late in the day to be worrying about the whys, ifs and buts concerning a decision made almost 20 years ago.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It's worth remembering that the Queen was much closer to the boys than the British public were or indeed ever will be and therefore she would be far more qualified than anyone else to decide what to do.

Frankly, I cannot imagine the Queen looks back on it all now and wonders whether she made the right decision or not - personally I think it is rather a little late in the day to be worrying about the whys, ifs and buts concerning a decision made almost 20 years ago.

You are right, but there was a former private/press secretary (I don't remember his name) who said on BBC/ITV or Sky that the Queen was very hurt by what the press said/wrote.

 

[Denville]

To Royal Norway I don't know why you are shocked, I presume because I've criticised the queen. But I still don't understand why. IS she above criticism? I admire her in many ways but I think she was at fault over the issue of Di's death and funeral and I say so. I never said she was false or a bad grandmother, I don't know where that comes from. I did say that she allowed the boys to be sent out to meet the public, knowing that the public would not criticise them and I believe that's true. I don't think it was a terrible thing to do, but other posters seem to feel that it was very hard on them.. so if that's the case, why did the queen allow it?
I think that she had become aware that there was now a lot of hostility towards the RF for their isolation In Balmoral during the week and she then came to London with the boys and went out to see the flowers, and was clearly trying to make it appear that she was aware of the people's feelings.. And part of that was letting the boys go out, they would not attract hostility, People wanted to speak to them and offer condolences...

 

[Osipi]

To Royal Norway I don't know why you are shocked, I presume because I've criticised the queen. But I still don't understand why. IS she above criticism? I admire her in many ways but I think she was at fault over the issue of Di's death and funeral and I say so. I never said she was false or a bad grandmother, I don't know where that comes from. I did say that she allowed the boys to be sent out to meet the public, knowing that the public would not criticise them and I believe that's true. I don't think it was a terrible thing to do, but other posters seem to feel that it was very hard on them.. so if that's the case, why did the queen allow it?
I think that she had become aware that there was now a lot of hostility towards the RF for their isolation In Balmoral during the week and she then came to London with the boys and went out to see the flowers, and was clearly trying to make it appear that she was aware of the people's feelings.. And part of that was letting the boys go out, they would not attract hostility, People wanted to speak to them and offer condolences...

I agree with Jack and think its time to let this matter die out. All this happened almost 20 years ago and it is fruitless to keep on debating it. I will no longer participate in the discussion of what the Queen should have or shouldn't have done at that time. I've voiced my view. That's enough.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen didn't go outside the BP gates with William and Harry. The boys were outside of KP with Charles

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/06/world/elizabeth-returns-to-london-to-bury-and-praise-diana.html

To me, they did the right thing. If they came back early. William and Harry would have been trapped inside the palace with no escape and 24 hrs of Diana death news. At Balmoral, they had privacy, things that could take their minds off of things.

Don't forget William didn't want to walk behind the coffin. His grandfather offered to walk too to help get William to walk. You can see when they go under the arch at Horse Guards, Philip checks on William.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Denville]

But everything about Diana is several years old. So if one participates in any discussion abut her, its bound to refer to what happened many years ago

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, most times the Diana discussion threads lie dormant until someone new comes along and bumps them alive again and everything is repeated over and over and over again ad nauseum. It just is the way it goes I guess.

If you go back to the start of this thread, you'll realize that it was started in 2003. That's 13 years ago. It also is kind of telling of how well this forum is run and maintained. Very excellent in my book.

 

[royal rob]

It's not just someone new who starts the Diana threads up !!!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

It's not just someone new who starts the Diana threads up !!!

OOOPS! Me bad. Sorry 'bout that royal rob.

 

[Denville]

well sorry, I like Diana and would like to have an interesting discussion about her, but in other areas on the Net, I've found that there is so much one sided emotional posting, that it becomes impossible.

 

[Osipi]

well sorry, I like Diana and would like to have an interesting discussion about her, but in other areas on the Net, I've found that there is so much one sided emotional posting, that it becomes impossible.

Nothing to be sorry about. I liked Diana too and enjoy discussing the various aspects of this woman in the various threads here and I think one of the best aspects of TRF is that posters mostly stick to facts and constructive criticism without going over the top and flaming people just because they can which happens too often in other places.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I like Diana as well, and I'm always happy to see that the threads about have been "bumped up." On occasion, I think that people come on here expecting to heroine-worship her and/or demonize her and/or the BRF and then be able to slam those who disagree with whatever their point of view is. Generally, if the conversation gets heated, I back off for awhile. I have no desire to get into arguments or score points. I like to think that my view of Diana is balanced. As long as people are reasonable, I'll take part in conversations.

 

[Denville]

Im glad that people are reasonable here and i DO like Diana and want to discuss her, without some people wildly insisting that she was an angel and Charles etc are demons. (or vice versa). but I felt taht the RF didn't show much grief at her death and that saddens me, whatever her faults were, she was a mother, she was a good person. And I am glad she had a public funeral.. her burial was private as was proper, but she had a "good send off"....

 

[Mermaid1962]

William Shawcross, in his biography of the Queen Mother (which I'm reading at the moment) quotes someone was saying that the Queen was completely in charge of what was happening with William and Harry. So even if she wasn't with them, she organized those who were with them at any time.

Of course it was good that the Queen and Prince Philip were there. However, I don't know how many hours were dedicated specifically to their grandsons.

 

[LauraS3514]

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

I remember a report that said St. Mary's Church no longer allows full burials - only the placing of ashes. Diana's will stated that she wanted to be buried, not cremated, so burial at the church was never an option.

 

[Denville]

I remember a report that said St. Mary's Church no longer allows full burials - only the placing of ashes. Diana's will stated that she wanted to be buried, not cremated, so burial at the church was never an option.

I don't know of that Laura but it may be true. I believe that Di's father's ashes were placed there.
But I think that for her to be buried or ashes placed somewhere like the church was just never an option.. it would have caused havoc...